Member Info for Toffers

just posting the link again for anyone who wants to subscribe and view the pleadings for themselves.
https://caseboard.io/cases/?prod_caseboard_cases%5Bquery%5D=Eurasia%20Mining

I'm leaving it there. Peeps can make their own minds up, but I would strongly suggest you obtain a copy of the pleadings and read for yourself if interested.

may be if they had been able to sell their shares, they wouldn't be in any mess you indicate they are in. I'm not saying the claimants will win their case, but the fact that share certificates were lost and not replaced despite numerous requests for it to happen, doesn't instil anyone with confidence about the matter does it? Imagine if one of us had our certificates misplaced or lost by Link and the company didn't replace them, we'd be up in arms. If the Judge should find in favour of the claimants, then as I say, the likelihood is that damages will be colossal. If the claimants have subsequently had business troubles, and the selling of their shares would have helped to bail them out, then you can see why the damages would be colossal. I have no idea who will win or lose, I am not the Judge, and I am simply going on what has been pleaded in the amended partics of claim, and the claimants wouldn't be advised to pursue the case if the lawyers thought there wasn't a fighting chance of succeeding. The claimants have barristers instructed.

As per the pleadings, they require a declaration from the couort for breach of articles of association point 9.6, a direction on obtaining indemnity or otherwise from the Judge as now incapable of obtaining the same, and an order that the company deliver the replacement certificates. If they succeed, then they will be entitled to damages, and the Judge will need to assess at what point they might have sold some shares , how many, and at what price, and that will then form the loss to which they will be entitled to be compensated, and then it follows, that they will be awarded costs. The Judge can also at his discretion order any further financial relief that he sees fit. If the company win, it will be the other way around of course, and whilst the Judge might well take issue about the conduct of both parties in not actually dealing with the matter when indemnity insurance was on offer, the fact that the claimants have had no option in the end but to seek the redress of the court, due to the substantial delays they hav encoutered from the company's registrars and so on, and the fact the certificates haven't been replaced, then damages could be substantial if they do lose as Queeld alone hold over 300 million shares from recollection.

so you're the judge now mr nuffin, and you've decided the case! Oh dear oh dear. If only you had some legal qualifications which might then be a cause for listening to your arguments, but alas, you only have that very peculiar grey stuff in your head. Clowns even have more intellect than you. It is clear in the amended partics as I have stated that they were offered indemnity insurance for a period of 30 days to get the matter sorted, but the company continued to drag it's heels through it's registrar. And what don't you get about parties to a contract? The claimants bought shares in the company, the company appoints a third party to maintain the register and issue the share certificates for them, the claimants have therefore sued the company as their contract is with the company from whom they purchased the shares. You are an absolute joker and you understand nothing, absolutely nothing about contract law, that is clear. If Eurasia lose this case, then the claimants will be entitled to damages as pleaded at point (4), damages to be assessed, plus further or other relief at point (5) and costs (6). The damages alone could be colossal.

should add they shorted it down, and then went long a while back, that's why their desperate. Their plan was to activate another assault for an upward push, and that's why they don't want the negativity and truth being posted. I think a fair few of us know who this crew are!

the problem is mr nuffin that you are shorting this with your mates and that's why your wetting yourselves. It's clear to see who your mates are. We all know who you are and what your game is. If you've got any sense, you'll abandon your small time shorts with the rest of the gang.

mr nuffin, so where it states, as just one example, that the claimants solicitors wrote stipulating that an insurer was prepared to issue indemnities for the claimants for a period of 30 days was a lie then was it? and that's just one example from the amended particulars. Also, Link act on behalf of the company as registrars, so the claimants have sued the company. It would be a matter for the Eurasia to decide whether or not they ask for Link to be joined in as a party to the proceedings as a second defendant, but they haven't made that request. As for the shares being acquired by others, if there's no share certificate, how on earth is that possible? As I said yesterday, the circus is missing a clown, and it's not me!

Del, I've just done a quick summary for you as follows;
The claimants rely on articles of association sections 9.1. relating to certificates in the register, 9.6 relating to loss and replacement and 9.7 that there will be no charge for replacement. 2017 the certificates were lost. July 2018 the claimants informed Link. August 2018 Link enclosed letters of indemnity for completion. Then a gap to August 2019 when claimants ask again. It trundles on and Zurich and another insurer approached by claimants. July 2020 Link said still looking in to it all and they would respond, but there was no substantive response from them, so on 10 August 2020 the solicitors wrote to Link as a final warning shot marking it urgent, wanting a reply, and still it drags on with Link not responding, and then Zurich and Trust and Probate Insurance withdrew their consent to provide indemnities for the claimants based on the claimants not being in the UK and the potential liability had become much greater due to the company's share price having risen exponentially. The claimants couldn't get any other cover. By Nov 2021 the claimants felt they had exhausted every possibility to try and resolve the matter and so proceedings were issued stating breaches of articles 9.6 in the articles of association and requesting the court to direct whether the question of an indemnity should now be dispensed with as it is now impossible to obtain one, especially with the war intervening as well, and an order for the company to deliver replacement certificates. They have also requested damages at point (4) to be assessed, and at point (5) further or other relief, and at point (6) costs. Hope that helps.

If they lose the Mispare/Queeld litigation, then may be they will do a deal with them for the transfer of directors shares, and the $35 mill meant for the Rosgeo JV is already offshore in a bank account in Cyprus I believe, and as they've already moved the nickel in to subsidiary companies in the Cyprus territory, then it all looks primed for heading to Cyprus, and away from UK investors! Just stinks. As for mr nuffin's suggestion that Mispare and Queeld have been directed in relation to disclosure, all parties have to make disclosure of the documents they intend to rely on to the court, before the trial, so again, a biased view from mr nuffin, it's all parties that have to disclose, so that the Judge can read through all documents before hearing the case. If any documents are missing, it's then an uphill struggle to get a Judge to agree to accept late admission, and there can be a costs penalty for failing to disclose earlier on.

get those pleadings and go through the particulars of claim. You are the voice of reason here. Mr nuffin will try to have me expunged, but someone needs to take him to task, as he is the master of twist. He claims that there is no claim for damages. You will see that there is, and that currently it is unquantifiable as the Judge will need to decide when shares might have been cashed and how many, if the claimants win on the first aspect, as to whether the company should have replaced their share certificates without the lengthy delay, which then meant they could no longer obtain any indemnity insurance. Thanks.

No need to apologise Redirons, entirely your decision of course. I wish you well. Hope this has a happier ending than most AIM nightmares for everyone! All the best.

ps. that word is f.a.r.s.e.!

Del, mr nuffin might post a part of the pleadings for you though, seeing he is so intent that there is no claim for damages incorporated into the same, but no doubt he will miss that bit out! I would suggest you pay the sub and study for yourself, if interested, and cancel thereafter, as you can cancel at any time, and at least you will have seen for yourself.

Del, the case board site is a managed subscription site, so it is not possible to post anything from it, as that would be a breach of their terms and conditions. You either need to take the subscription for say one month, so you can view the documents, which is what I did, or go to the High Court and view, which is time consuming. If anyone wants to risk posting the details from the case board website that is up to them, but I'd prefer not to breach copyright of the site, as they charge for the service.

and what else is wrong, that's where it leads to, people start to wonder? i'd quite like to see a judge order disclosure of all of the company paperwork, could be interesting, including NDA's! by the way, I like the way you twist facts mr nuffin, but people can read the particulars of claim for themselves and make their own minds up, and not have to listen to your continual drivel that there is no claim for damages, and all the other rubbish you spout.

I am Toffers. Just because I've argued something on another board that doesn't suit their agenda, they seem to want to tarnish someone. Let them play their games, I'm really not interested. If I want to debate and put forward facts, so be it, if they want to twist the same to suit their agenda, nothing I can do about it. Best solution is to filter, trouble is they all have a multitude of handles clearly.

Filtered. Please do the same.

I think lse need to look in to who you are, your mate sbrace, and who iknownuffin are. That would be more appropriate.

Happy for people to read your abuse, just shows what sort of person you are.