Member Info for Toffers

Anyone else hear on the Hemlo Gold story how they went from $2 prior to production, to $20 dollars per share on production? Amazing! And that was in the 1980's.

Food for thought also Sandgrounded, excellent, it's getting exciting ;)

Do watch it on Youtube, it gets you excited! ;)

I was just wondering, drilling seems to be moving on at a pace, and there is no word of SD coming to speak as yet, so I'm wondering if the plan is changing, and whether the speed to drill has something to do with Rio and what they might be proposing in the background? Rio are listed on the ASX of course, so what would be the point of us going to the expense of jumping hurdles and listing? may be there's more to it than meets the eye? may be there will be a buy out once Rio have a better indication of what lies beneath? SD sort of reminds me of the John Larch story and Hemlo Gold. You can see about Hemlo Gold on Youtube although I came across it in a book I was reading! Exciting times ahead hopefully ;)

EGM/OGM are one and the same. They can be called by shareholders as well as the Board. There is no statutory duty to call an EGM/OGM of any nature in the same way that there is a statutory duty to call and hold an AGM. End of.

They are not the same - AGM is different to an OGM or EGM as some term it. See link, same terms apply to UK law. Look it up for yourselves. The two have different components and do not serve the same purpose and are called in different ways. One is a statutory obligation, the other is not. Some of these posters really are quite deceitful, but we know that anyway and they have no credence, such as nuffin who continually posts lie after lie. He must be so so desperate. Nite.

https://legalvision.com.au/difference-between-an-agm-and-egm/

What's your total obsession with stalking Toffers and every post Toffers writes under the handle Toffers? what is wrong with you? You seriously need help, seriously, most of the time it's not even worth responding to either, as you never post any facts. What's worse is you post under a number of handles, Summit is always not far away, Mac another, Dr another, Folio and Pompal another, so you definitely have multi monikers for sure on here.

Company website still states it is an AGM!

To OGM that should say

If they have changed it from OGM, as I see it, it will be for one or more of the following reasons;

Queeld have indicated they want to raise issues, hence change to what effectively will have become an EGM

The auditors have stood down which has caused an issue - this would tie in with the AR being redundant if it is an OGM rather than AGM, and the fact that yet again CS has made no reference to the litigation in progress

or

due to JN leaving without notice

Under the Companies Act though as a public company, they have a duty to call an AGM within the specified time, so if it has changed to OGM, surely they need to explain why, and what now happens about the AGM?

My views!

Apologies spikey, it was mjd I think. I was trying to wade through all the posts to find it.

In relation to the invasion of the forum tonight by one poster, who seems to be just here, and not anywhere else, if the Board would only just be more transparent, then carnage like this could well be avoided.

I suspect the aim of tonight is to remove Del's list of questions, so perhaps someone wants to copy it so that it can go on to an unhijacked thread later on over the weekend? and anything else of value! Nite all, including Georgie Porgie!

Firstly, Spikey, on that Friday, I was simply saying may be get out if you feel uncertain, the reason being that a lot of peeps were on tenterhooks with the AGM and AR information having not been provided by end of 30 June, that Friday, when the 6 months would be up and peeps were in fear of suspension. There's nothing worse than the fear for some when their money is trapped, and they have no control over it. All I said was may be get out until the Monday and re-evaluate, but you only post the get out bit and so you have taken what I said out of context.

On the litigation side, I bet none of you even thought that the Queeld case might well be appealed, depending on the outcome of course, and who loses. If the eventual losing party does find a reason to appeal, then it will drag on for even longer! Bad debts are one thing, and yes, companies are bought out even with bad debts to hand, but litigation is an entirely different matter.

As GI Gurdjieff wrote, "The first reason for man's inner slavery is his ignorance, and above all, his ignorance of himself...."

Have a good weekend all.

I've said what I've said OSF, it is not eurasia's case, the claimants are Queeld and Mispare, Queeld and Mispare will first ask for the Judge to determine whether or not they should have been given replacement certificates by the company. If they succeed on that, then as pleaded, they will ask for damages, to be assessed, because it's not know what the Judge will accept as to when they might have sold and how many they would have sold. Lets park it there and see what the outcome is. My views as always.

OSF, give it up, you're seriously beginning to make me think you are in fact Mac!

And if you read and digest exactly what I've said, I've said, the first port of call is whether it was reasonable or not to have expected eurasia to replace the certificates based on what the claimants did, in providing an offer of indemnity insurance which they asked the company to look at and agree. If the Judge decides in favour of the claimants on that score, then damages will follow, and if they don't ask for damages to include an amount for what they could have sold their shares for had they been able to 'escape' effectively and sell, then I imagine their lawyers might be getting in touch with their own professional indemnity insurers! This is why damages are to be assessed, as they can't quantify it until the Judge decides on the certificates, and then if that is favourable to the claimants, the Judge then hearing evidence as to when they say they would have most likely sold, and how many they might well have sold. End of. Wait and see what the outcome is, but as I say, it wouldn't surprise me if it then goes to appeal! My views.

Dear oh dear, you should read what you write! It's not eurasia's case! You can't even get the parties the right way around!

"Damages amount is not specified, as what EUA want is unknown, so the cost is unknown, so too whether such level of indemnity is actually obtainable."

There's always the risk of an appeal by the aggreived party, if advised. End of.

"damages to be assessed" OSF which you don't quite seem to understand! End of.

As for Scuba, he's entitled to state his views like anyone else, because these forums are personal views on a situation, if you want a professional view, you can go and pay for it yourself, so these are all just personal views, despite peoples backgrounds, because as shareholders, shareholders are never privy to every bit of information relating to a company and so no one knows the full ins and outs other than the Board, the Nomad, and any other professionals they instruct on specific matters. So the continual disdain, hatred and abuse hurled at some posters by others, who are quite frankly very deceitful characters, several of them having a number of monikers and not just one, is quite shameful and pitiful. Best of luck to those who are genuine holders with your questions to the Board, but they didn't answer last year, and will this year be any different? My views.

Should just clarify that I haven't been in practice for some time now and these are my views. No one knows what will happen in the Queeld case as we are not privy to all the ins and outs, nor present at any hearings, but all I can say is, in my view, it should never have got that far, and litigation such as this is never pretty. One side or other will be unhappy with the outcome and it could go to appeal! If it then goes to appeal, it will be a few more years before that's determined. I've never come across another company buying a company that has ongoing litigation, it's usually to be avoided in business strategies but that's my opinion.