Member Info for You_Having_a_Laugh

Its pretty common for a company to shun requests

Make no assumptions. The warranties were "customary" and we don't know the details.

The statement below is not proven. Looking over the ingo on the 2 recent leavers its not clear there were likely, 100%, to be any breaches. Look at why they were removed. Have to wait for judge to decide and all will be clear.

"It's the fraudulent warranties + other lies that is the problem."

bakky, nothing is proven. No one can say there was wrongdoing or fraud in this matter, that's for a court to decide if it ever gets there.

As soon as a court date is announced this goes subjudice and best not to make accusations as yet unproven, certainly then or even now.

Interesting to see if it goes to court and then how long for.

If there is a case, SJL, what value of settlement?
Good reason for asking.

I might buy.

Any action can take years, is not guaranteed to lead to a liability, and the terms of any settlement unknown if there is one.

A settlement could be based on cost plus base rate and anoyone aware of the pernicious impact of inflation can be sure the burden will be reduced by such over time. 5 years, 10 years?

SJL will know what jusrisdiction takes precedence but the fact its suggested its UK or US might just mean, depending on the small print, it's British Virgin Islands as the corporate residence of MMX.

Assuming there is a case to answer when push comes to shove.

Scotty, chances are the market now knows of this risk and it is priced in.
Also, why assume any court action finds against the defendant?
There's always more going on than PI's can know.

Might be British Virginia Islands courts?

Will this be under US, UK or some other jurisdiction?

bakky, a good legal team will piece a picture together.
"No comment" is said for good reason.

I hope MMX management read this thread.
Potentially some vmaterial to use should need arise.

Is there some form of collusion here?

"For the record TF did most of the DD for ICM so he knows exactly what was raised by us and what the answers were we got and now he is on the "other side" can see exactly where to look for the bodies that are buried. just saying...."

Not so sure but I am pretty sure posting about it here, with some of the details, wasn't a brilliant idea. No criticism, can understand the emotion, just emotion can get in the way when it's best to channel an inner "Spock".

Might do us a favour if more can be bought back low and ultimately no case to answer or found there was no wrong doing.

SJL should proceed immediately to legal action to find redress.

Asking for shares as redress for an unproven wrong doing doesn't sit well or look good.

No management SHOULD EVER discuss such as in so doing there could be inferred a tacit acceptance of wrong doing.

Go to court, don't faff about, be right (compensated ) or wrong (pick up big bills).

How do we know there was wrong doing?
Seriously. How do we know definitively?
Its best if all such is handled between the parties responsible, not on a PBB speculating. There isn't even a formal court action in process yet. When any RNS announced a case to defend then its interesting. Until then it's cant.

Sooner the better to clear the air.
Hard to make a case without proof acceptable in a court of law.

No proof = speculative attempt = judge kicks it out quickly = court costs for no benefit.

All the while playing it out on a PBB possibly damaging a company that could be innocent of the accusation whilst risking prejudicing the case and opening the door to a counter claim for damages.

Crazy imho but what do I know, nothing.

and positive newsflow due.

My understanding is no company RNS is needed & the company probably doesn't need to release any information without court order forcing such release to a 3rd party.

Any perceived attempt to influence the sp as a bargaining chip or for benefit probably won't go down well in court.

Best thing to do is to keep all communications between the parties involved only and otherwise silent.

All imho only but playing things out on a PBB is asking for complications.

BB, I would hope any lawyer worth his salt would advise making no comment in relation to potential litigation and to refrain from posting on the company PBB.

Perhaps US lawyers are a bit relaxed about it but good UK ones make it perfectly clear. Silence is golden.

Once upon a time it was made clear to me to take no action in public by word or deed that could prejudice a case that fortunately never came about. It gets tricky really quickly. Every word carries weight with a good lawyer and more so the written word.

Very easy to prejudice a case if damage is done or threat of potential damage interpreted as a bargaining ploy. Can even leave the door open to counter claims.

I hate legal stuff, stressful, risky etc.

A negative impact to share price from PBB posts, when those posts are related to a future potential litigation and posted by the potential future litigant, could be interpreted multiple ways.

Easy to cause damage to innocent shareholders prior to wrong doing having been proven whilst risking prejudicing any case.

Even worse if iwrong doing is not proven. What redress for shareholders who may be damaged?