Member Info for Toffers

B1ll are you talking about indemnity insurance for the company regarding the case, or indemnity insurance for the claimants in replacing their certificates? they are two totally different beasts. I don't believe the company will have indemnity insurance to cover the legal proceedings, I cannot see how an indemnity insurers would insure against something such as this tbh. If you are talking about the claimants, they were required to obtain indemnity insurance as per the articles of association, so that the company's back was covered if the certificates turned up in someone elses hands. As I read it from the amended partics, they obtained such insurance which had an offer period of 30 days, they tried to rectify the situation that way, but the company dragged its heels and as a result, the insurance expired. Were the company aware it would expire within 30 days? No doubt they were! Please read the court pleadings for yourself. Anyone who is invested should really pay the £36 to caseboard and read the documents for themselves. £36 is a small price to pay considering the litigation could cost you a lot more! My views of course.

And just to finish on it, why am I angry about it? because the company didn't even inform shareholders, they were engaged in this issue for 2/3 years and didn't inform shareholders. They didn't even inform shareholders that the matter had gone to court in December 2021. Why? because they didn't want everyone selling out, just like they didn't want Queeld/Mispare selling out, but if they had informed shareholders in December 2021, or any time up to March 2022 when the war started, I, like many I suspect, would have sold quite a few of their holdings to be on the safe side, so many shareholders were denied that opportunity, and were denied the chance to exit at a much higher sp, had they been informed of something which definitely was of material effect. End of.

Queeld and Mispare had an offer of indemnity insurance for a period of 30 days, they reported this to the company's agents who did nothing. That's how I read it in the amended particulars. As a result of nothing happening from the company's side, the indemnity offer expired. Then the war reared its ugly head and no one was prepared to offer indemnity insurance to the claimants, probably due to the company's assets being held in the Russian State. For heavens sake, read the amended particulars of claim. If the Judge thought there was no case to be answered, he would have thrown it out at first instance. This is a high court case, with highly experienced judges, and the case isn't going away. Just like you or I, they held the certificates, lost them, sought to replace them, obtained and notified the company of an offer of indemnity insurance, the company did nothing, the offer lapsed, the claimants couldn't renew it, in the meantime, since the whole shebang started Queeld got in to monetary difficulties, my guess is that Churakov went to their aid, but the company stopped him and told him re-purchase the shares otherwise they might prevent him from being able to sell in the future, however, his "urgent cash call" led to the share price de-stabilising, and the rest is history. Queeld and Mispare are entitled to the replacement of their certificates provided they can give an indemnity to save the company being sued should the certificates turn up in someone else's hands, and the claimants got indemnity cover but the company did nothing, that's how I perceive it from what I have read, in fact if you read the amended partics it does rather look as though the company dragged their heels all the way through, and my guess as to why that happened is that they didn't want 300+ million shares flooding on to the market for sale, as it would have negated any chance of trying to raise/place as the sp would have no doubt have gone to the floor! These are my views but if you are so blinkered as to not see both sides of the coin, then heaven help you.

Should say, didn't appear to deal with it.

Smmit, the old system was paper certificates, which still applies to some. Read about it, there are still shareholders holding with paper certificates. System is due to change in the next couple of years. Yes, merit is everything, and teh Judge hasn't thrown it out so he must think there is some merit for the case to be heard. Remember also, look what happened when Churakov sold his shares, the sp crashed, losing some 15-20p, imagine if Queeld had sold 300 million, and Mispare another 80 million odd for instance, then perhaps you might see there is merit in wondering why, when they had indemnity insurance on offer to them for a period of 30 days, the company through their agents, did appear to deal with it. Yes, both sides will have a case to answer, and clearly, with a barrister on board, the claimants have been advised no doubt that they have a good case. If they win, what I'm unsure of is what they are going to claim for damages, ie do they want monetary compensation, in which case, is there enough, and if not, then what, do they want a transfer of directors shares? and would the Judge acquiesce to that? I'm not saying they will win, the Judge will determine that, but I'm not putting my money on them losing either! Anyone can say they think they have a good case! But I just feel the company should be up front and say what the likely scenario is should they lose because I see it, you're money will be gone! As I say, as I see it!

Open your eyes mr nuffin. There is serious litigation in play, the company only tell shareholders one side of the story in that they believe they have a good case, what they don't say is what is likely to happen should they lose. That's what you need to be thinking about, because if they do lose the Queeld case, I imagine the financial penalty will be hefty, plus two sets of legal fees to be paid for the claimants, and then the company's own. No insurer will pay out if it might appear the company through its agents have been negligent. I draw attention to the word might. I have my own views on that, as I question why the hell did they let it get to thi stage in the first place, but as I've said, my own view is they didn't want 300+ million shares flooding on to the market and if I were representing Queeld and Mispare, that would be the most prominent argument I would be putting forward. I'd say it's best to wait before throwing any more money in to this, and await the outcome of that case! My view of course, but ask the company what the likely scenario is if they lose that case.

Insurers, even if they have it, don't cover for a company's failure to do something that would have avoided the litigation in the first place!

Summit, read the documents and you'll see why it appears not to have been accepted by the company and it's registrars, it appears to be down to a dragging of heels and not responding in a timely manner! Read them for yourselves, because I'll just be accused of de-ramping, but I am not one for companies just putting one side of the case if they are enmeshed in serious litigation which effectively could lead to a hefty award of damages if lost. Shareholders should have both eventualities put to them, what happens if the company lose from a monetarily aspect if they lose, and what happens if they win. All they are putting to shareholders is that they believe they have a good case, but I think most people have gone past believing anything the company says, and would prefer to hear the plain truth of win v lose and the likely outcomes for both.

Where have you been? have you not read the amended particulars of claim? we've had this debate. In the amended particulars of claim they claim damages for not being able to sell some or all of their shares because the share certificate was not replaced, despite them having offers of indemnity insurance at one point. If the Judge finds that they were denied the chance to replace the certificates, and that the certificates shoudl have been replaced, then damages will follow. A Judge then has to decide when he thinks they would have sold some or all of their shares, and at what price. It does seem odd that Churakov tried to dispose of shares at the time Queeld appeared to urgently need funds, and it does seem odd that perhaps, may be perhaps, eurasia didn't want the possibility of over 300 million shares flooding the market at that time which would have decimated the sp no doubt! If say a Judge finds in their favour and says will lets take the median, ie they might have sold half at half the sp from it's top, so say around 21p, you do the maths, and that's just Queeld, and not Mispare who are joint claimants and also hold a mass of shares. You cannot discount this litigation, if they lose it, how are they going to pay their way out of that? unless the $35 mill suddenly mysteriously re-appears, but I don't think even that would cover it, as don't forget there would be legal costs to pay for both claimants as well, as it's been dragging on for years. To counter this, which is only fair, then eurasia lose nothing and will get their legal costs paid, but that's nothing really in comparison to if they should lose. And then there's Logik, much smaller claim, but again, the company should never have got themselves in to such a position with litigation like this in my view.

So another directors salary? yet they have the Queeld court case, which if lost, could wipe them out completely? Makes sense, that's eurasia! Didn't Dugdale, isn't she female, do that stupid video voice over malarchy which came to no avail?!

Hi JP, yes, might well do so, thanks for suggesting, appreciate it.

My gut feeling is that SD needs to do an interview to show and reiterate that he is aligned with shareholders. I can't see there is anything to stop him, he's not caught in an NDA situation as far as we are aware at present, so I think it would help to steady the market and get rid of all these non invested trolls who have suddenly appeared for a reason, either to purloin shares from the weak for their lords and masters or they are shorting this down, and give us all some breathing space. Professor1 and others are well known on other forums as to why they seem to appear, so ideally, SD needs to put a spanner in the works and stop this. There was no reason at all for that sudden decline in sp, it was always known from that Donald Leggett interview and others that SD intended to raise at some point in the not too distant future, and that's what aim listed companies do, and if they surround themselves with a good finance team, then they raise at exactly the right times. I believe that as we head towards the end of the year, in another 6 months time, the situation will be very different here, and an sp of 7p will be long gone, and those who missed the boat will have regrets. Gold is always in demand. Let's hope we have plenty of it when it comes to production early next year.

Does the fact that 'Ripper' is a mining term have any influence/bearing in relation to this tweet?!!

Hi TT, thanks for the info, it's 17th already today, he needs to give sufficient notice so that peeps can make arrangements to attend. I live in London, so I'm hopeful I can make it all being well.

Anyone know if Shaun intends to do an updated interview now that the newmont newcrest deal is out in the open and will await shareholders approval? I'd just like to hear him more excited than ever! Can Donald get Shaun on the blower?

We appear to be rising. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for that 'manufactured' drop! Keep listening to the recent interviews guys with SD. Nothing ventured, nothing gained as they say!

Just recapping on my notes. First of all, SD said that 'Wyloo will help', and why wouldn't Wyloo help us out with whatever is about to happen? whatever it is, I'm sure it is good for Greatland. He then went on to say that he was delighted with Newmont and that they were not new to him, and he has "bought assets off them before". Might be totally wrong, but that signalled to me that they might be prepared to let their 70% share from Newcrest go! He went on to state the options are different and better than two years ago! He went on to explain that Wyloo are on our side and that "we're not privy to discussions between Newcrest and Newmont". This to me signals that it will take time to sort and peeps should be patient. He went on to say that from Greatland's perspective the more info on Haverion that is in the market place the better! He went on to mention about Wyloo and expecting us to align. As regards the share price, he went on to mention about funding in place, a strategic holder, and that he is pretty focused on delivering share price. He then stated that the London market is a little less positive than the Australian market. Hence the benefit of joining the ASX soon. Once there is alignment, he mentioned that the share price might go up 50%! BAU at site and development underway for early 2024. He mentioned gearing up for a March release. He again stressed "they are alinging everything in their portfolio" (Newcrest) and "we do like aligning with Newcrest". He went on to state he is a dividend kind of guy. He also mentioned there was not an NDA as yet in place with Newcrest. He expected it to all play out in April. He stressed we own 30% of a world class asset and it is an exciting time for the company and for shareholders. Insi investors want the ESG report so it will beout shortly. Exploration in Paterson (beyond Hav) so to take advantage in the Paterson. Scallywagg has the best results outside of Hav. he went on to state consider it Tier 1, world class and that Hav is a great asset. Targeting 30 June I think he meant for DFS but Newcrest are funding it but SD is pretty distracted with the take over bid so might not be until Take over resolved. He made clear he wants to pursue of the "opportunities open to us". He mentioned Tier 1 banks, ANZ, HSBC, ING. Listen to the interview again peeps. Patience is key. We are currently being played by those controlling the sp IMVHO!

Nice one sisu, just looked up the meaning of sisu, spot on!

Loose, how did you find that out? :)

Scuba, totally agree, but be careful, this lot are bear baiting, I suspect they're waiting for you to post a few times on the other share on here and then they'll report as technically it's not cricket to mention a rival share on the same forum as another, so be careful. Eurasia is dropping, last week I said probably in to the 1's by the end of this week. It might not be that far off. Looks like the Board have left the building!