Member Info for Uncanny

wulber - 29 May 2017 - 21:18 - 28353 of 28353 - 0 I have just read the annulment application again and have come to some conclusions whether you agree or disagree. Firstly, the stay of costs decision should be announced between July to early September. This could be ROI's first hurdle on whats next up their sleeve, because if ROI are unsuccessful in crippling (or pressuring) CHL's financial situation then this is the first setback for ROI and a slim chance of an OOC if their legal counsel think the annulment case is likely to be won by CHL. Secondly, ROI counsel might say, OK, if the award is frozen for the duration of the annulment process they might then decide to advise to continue with the annulment process and then review again upon the conclusion. If CHL win, the chances of an OOC magnifies and might be a defining moment for the cases future. The OOC value would also increase! Then, IMO to then go to a new tribunal is a double edged sword: it buys ROI more time as a delaying exercise against other cases and new inward investment, but the flip side being the award could be significantly more than in case 1 and 2 above. Therefore, 1 is a well calculated gamble, 2 is an outright gamble and 3 is suicidal for ROI legal counsel, except for a ploy as a delaying exercise or for things to get lost in translation as happened in the first tribunal AIMHO of course.

I agree. Whilst some may want the suspension removed, it is a futule exercise. If the goal is to save on costs during annulment / arbitration AND upon a successful win, distribute the award pro rata to shareholders, returning to trading is pointless. There are no merits whatsoever, except to waste further money which we are trying to preserve at this juncture.

I take all your points and agree. So we certainly could have a 12 - 24 month slog before we get an annulment decision and then ROI will most likely fight this to the bitter end in a new tribunal, so as much as we want an OOC, it is probably a very slim hope in terms of the actions of ROI in the past.

Onlooker Once the application has been lodged, ROI / adhoc have digested the case then ROI must submit notification of their demand that the award remains at the start of proceedings. If this happens, ICSID may take the view that ROI are simply trying to strangle CHL's efforts and play dirty which is to be expected! Wouldn't you do the same? The application has now been accepted by ICSID and proceedings will start soon. I am adamant DQ and CC have a plan of action for this obvious tactic by ROI. A security bond would not cost a fortune to cover the eventuality that the annulments fails and the award remains. Any legal funder can see the strength of CHL's annulment case. One thing that I keep thinking about is.... as we only need 1 of the 17 grounds to annul, if ICSID kick off with the say the strongest ground for annulment and the adhoc committee agree that this is sufficient to annul, could ICSID just halt proceedings and close, or ..... do ICSID have to hear the full 17 grounds, moot and then reach a conclusion for the whole duration? Surely the latter would save the adhoc committee many months of unneccesary time away from dealing with other legal actions. I would be interested to hear peoples views as annulment cases (from what I have read) can go on for months, but if the case is clearcut, can't the adhoc committee just wind up proceedings? Looking at ICSID's www, the shortest case that wasn't rejected is c. 7 months, the longest 2.5 years, so theoretically we could be done by or before XMAS! I just hope the adhoc committee see from the outset that this is an open and shut case and commonsense prevails and we beat ICSID record for the shortest annulment case in ICSID history.

If we win annulment, I understand the slate is cleaned and we can start again with a new claim. This time without bogus forestry boundaries and the fraud allegations that were thrown in, completely stripped out meaning ROI have notjing on CHL and easily proven that the licenses were given in good faith and that the ROI illegally cancelled them after realising the size of the resource. Should be an easy win once / if annulled!

Therefore ROI are finished and they will realise that if/when CHL win annulment, CHL's legal counsel will go back to the drawing board for an even bigger award than previously as winning will be a foregone conclusion! Thats why we may get an early OOC, whilst the annulment hearing is being processed, but more likely if/when CHL win the annulment.

£4 would do me very nicely!

Ooc or go the full hog!

Good odds then! 73%

Imagine if the jusges were Asia based.

Sorry jamesss, are you saying annulment / occ guaranteed?

Exactly, the adhoc comm has to be completely independent and impartial from the original tribunal panel.

Jamesss Half a billion sterling would be about £3.70 and set up quite nicely for life!

Hoping for a quick OOC or dreaming of it should I say. Whether it comes or not is a different matter as we have two schools of thought: 1. ROI Drawing things out ti the end 2. Quick OOC to nio this in the bud and a save face. My b/e is 27.5p per share so I guess I should be grateful if I got that back. What would CHL and CC see as a fair value for the mine asset and what would they accept?

If CHL delisted for the sake of a buyout, then being unlisted there is no obligation to inform the market in the same way Oxus are. Therefore it could be a good ploy if ROI want to do a OOC. Saying that CHL could simply agree not to publicise the matter. Shareholders would just receive an update stating that there has been an approach for the company. It wouldn't take a genius to fatjom out that there is new mine owner and they just happen to be 50% owned by ROI!

Who would sell there holding now? Get less than a penny a share now or wait for the annulment and 'possibly' receive many multiples. Nobody in their right mind would sell now at what the likely valuation would be, which in fact is a minus figure per share! Therefore there is no liquidity at all and you couldn't trade probably anyway.

I think the question i should have asked is...... why do you want to unsuspend the stock?

GP, do you understand that since December 2016 the shares are currently worthlessas there is no market. Whats the point of returning to the market? Nobody will make a market in the stock as there in no liquidity.

A bit like claiming car insurance before a crash has happened!

Of course, idiotic to resume listing at this juncture!