We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register to chat with like-minded investors on our interactive forums.
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cloudified Holdings Limited | CHL | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 37.75 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 37.75 |
| Industry Sector |
|---|
| GENERAL FINANCIAL |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 18/12/2019 17:46 by andy abeygale,LOL! I would like to take the opportunity to wish everyone that posted here on the CHL thread a wonderful Xmas, and a healthy and prosperous New Year. |
Posted at 05/11/2019 15:24 by neo26 Well i hope all those involved in this scam burn in hell.Still dont know if Mazak still lives in Indonesia. Just hope he wasnt involved. Chl shareholders were cheated. Imho |
Posted at 22/9/2019 23:42 by andy Stephen,To be fair he did his best for CHL, in my opinion at least. He worked for free for CHL, and tried to fight a system that favoured the ROI. I do not begrudge him his new position, I hope he does well with his new company personally, I found him likeable and honest. |
Posted at 30/8/2019 07:21 by andy I wonder how close this site is to the former CHL project area? |
Posted at 25/4/2019 05:48 by jamie414 My predictions on Feb 6th clarified by some i P.M.Draft result sent to parties feb 2nd, with 18 Feb deadline for Amendments to be sent to ICSID.4th March Amended documents sent to parties for perusal.18th March publish Committee decision, or W/C.From Day 1 of the award I have said, Precedents set in Stone by this award are far too onerous for the award to stand, ICSID Arbitration would become totally unworkable. The original Tribunal were erroneous on 2 aspects which ICSID own rules forbid, on 2 others that common law rules, unlawful.Minnottee bar is interesting from the point of view of just how stupid many posters are, let me expand, Posters actually believe that the committee will be, "BLIND" to the lies and subterfuge that ROI have engaged in, throughout this long exhausting journey. Moreover those same, `EXPERT` posters think ICSID will allow this theatre to continue, ad infinitum.WRONG on both counts. My experience tells me, the Committee will annul the award and will have passed their findings to ICSID with comments appertaining to certain actions taken by ROI that prolonged the hearing and led to the embarrassing situation that the original tribunal found themselves in, which could have led(if the award had gone, unchallenged)to a serious miscarriage of justice.Think about that. Had CHL been unable to fund this annulment application, a very serious miscarriage of justice WOULD have occurred.ICSID, IMHO, will be minded to punish ROI for what amounts to nothing but, Criminal behaviour. Not only did ROI expropriate CHL assets, they sought to use ICSID to make that expropriation, legal. To compound matters, ROI then employed dubious, illicit methods to obtain an award that not only legalised the theft but left CHL with an enormous legal bill, meant to leave CHL without the means to fight on.Some believe ROI should be rewarded for their endeavours, I dont happen to agree.I look forward to the end game, coming soon. Very soon. |
Posted at 26/3/2019 17:32 by nick2412 A real absence of justice here.The only analogy I can think of is of someone being accused of stealing from someones bank account. The accuser says it's too onerous to provide their own bank statements. The court then finds the defendant guilty simply because it chooses to trust the word of the accused. This is despite evidence that the accuser has accumulated wealth by unexplained means (Noor) and is self-confessed associated with a supposed fraudster (Putra). Another analogy would be a third party noting that a working partner has won the lottery (the coal discovery) and then making highly dubious accusations to try and take the winnings away and, bizarrely, being successful in court. It's not going to happen I assume, but I'd like to see Pala put up a reward (or pay for a couple of private detectives) to try and unearth some fo the things that mysteriously disappeared or ROI found too onerous to provide. Getting any of the following would reverse the decision:- a) the log-book that, almost inevitably, would highlight that ROI personnel had authorised all licenses. b) Police records that exonerated Ridlatama and showed the licenses were genuine. These probably show that key documents in the regency highlight that key personnel had validated the licenses. c) Other licenses in the regency (or neighbouring regencies) that were not hand signed. Just as over-lapping licences were common place I suspect this was a routine method of signing. Quite possibly as a ruse to accuse a successful overseas investor of fraud in the event of successful discoveries. d) Documents that show the source of income for Noor's private jet ... rich political friend)s) with an interest in the coal resource? It's shocking that no adverse inferences were made with regard to the failure to supply essential case changing documents. Forgery was found on the basis of the word of the Regent (a gentleman recovering from a stroke who couldn't remember the dates he was in office) and a couple of associates.... as if they were going to say anything else. CHL asked for key documents that would have proven the innocence of Ridlatama and by implication shown that they had done due diligence. The fact that ICSID let ROI get away with the failure to supply case determining documents and found against CHL in their absence means ICSID should be brought to account themselves. A truly shocking state of affairs that shames the international arbitration system. We will see if CHL go for revision. I suppose it is unlikely but we will know soon. Unearthing any one of the above documents changes the case and, in that case there is nothing the highly dubious and (at best) incompetent ICSID could do about it. To get a stay of costs and revision means that CHL need to make their move and provide a new compelling fact soon. |
Posted at 21/3/2019 19:12 by wulber Not sure how much you have invested but all relative l guess, but for me personally a massive blow with Tuesday decision.Personally l can't actually write this off in my mind until we have an ultimatum from CHL by RNS.It is obvious the nepotism so to speak with the decision and looking after their own, but sometimes things can turn on a sixpence.The weekend and days following for me was a car crash both personally and financially but l am not blinkered, but also believe in Karma!I guess we have to just have to wait for CHL's next RNS which will boom (further fighting) or bust (go in to admin). I have emailed DQ but guess he suffering big time with his +10 years at CHL, albeit frustrated and angry. Thats why l think if there is a avenue to fight this he will steer us as best as he can or perhaps l am being naive?!The way l read things and l am no expert, if we can get stay of costs, present under a different court jurisdiction and get Pala on board, who in monetary terms have suffered most, albeit relative to us all, then there is a glimmer of hope.CC are top their game on a no win no fee and these very overpriced lawyers bonuses are all down to results!If there is a road to get compensation, perhaps with a massive haircut as Neo says, just get the original investment back, then l am sure they will advise CHL accordingly.I remain pessimistically optimistic or should l say holding to a fine line of opportunity.The key is, financing any next stage, is there overwhelming new evidence that could turn this? |
Posted at 14/3/2019 18:12 by stephen1946 My predictions on Feb 6th clarified by some i P.M.Draft result sent to parties feb 2nd, with 18 Feb deadline for Amendments to be sent to ICSID. 4th March Amended documents sent to parties for perusal. 18th March publish Committee decision, or W/C. From Day 1 of the award I have said, Precedents set in Stone by this award are far too onerous for the award to stand, ICSID Arbitration would become totally unworkable. The original Tribunal were erroneous on 2 aspects which ICSID own rules forbid, on 2 others that common law rules, unlawful. Minnottee bar is interesting from the point of view of just how stupid many posters are, let me expand, Posters actually believe that the committee will be, "BLIND" to the lies and subterfuge that ROI have engaged in, throughout this long exhausting journey. Moreover those same, `EXPERT` posters think ICSID will allow this theatre to continue, ad infinitum. WRONG on both counts. My experience tells me, the Committee will annul the award and will have passed their findings to ICSID with comments appertaining to certain actions taken by ROI that prolonged the hearing and led to the embarrassing situation that the original tribunal found themselves in, which could have led(if the award had gone, unchallenged)to a serious miscarriage of justice. Think about that. Had CHL been unable to fund this annulment application, a very serious miscarriage of justice WOULD have occurred. ICSID, IMHO, will be minded to punish ROI for what amounts to nothing but, Criminal behaviour. Not only did ROI expropriate CHL assets, they sought to use ICSID to make that expropriation, legal. To compound matters, ROI then employed dubious, illicit methods to obtain an award that not only legalised the theft but left CHL with an enormous legal bill, meant to leave CHL without the means to fight on. Some believe ROI should be rewarded for their endeavours, I dont happen to agree. I look forward to the end game, coming soon. Very soon. |
Posted at 12/3/2019 15:39 by nick2412 rossanan - yes, unfortunately, the Tribunal deemed there was third party forgery and CHL can't argue against the facts presented in that finding - only things like procedural errors, denial of the 'right to be heard' and any conflict with international law issues.The finding was odd given that two ROI Govt agencies had found the opposite. Moreover, the Tribunal made their assessment without the police documents that suggested otherwise. They also (grudgingly it seemed) acknowledged that the supposed Ridlatama forged licenses could only have been processed with insider help (the late Mr. Putra.) That brings in international law on state responsibility. CHL is saying this prevents ROI raising forgery. Due to their self acknowledged involvement, they should not be able to benefit from it. At least that's the submission. ROI and, of course, the Tribunal had to acknowledge the seals on the forged documents could only have been done by an insider. There were various log books that weren't supplied and may well have shown that the documents were verified by senior officials. They wouldn't have been able to find forgery then. No adverse inferences were made by the Tribunal for the failure of ROI to submit these and other key documents. A lot of the decision seems to be to have been based on Ishak's statement that he always hand-signed but he had just recovered from a stroke and didn't even get the dates correct regarding when he was Regent. Unfortunately, CHL can't argue against the finding of third party forgery by the Tribunal, so they have to focus on the manifest defects in the process the Tribunal used to reach that decision. If The AC find that state responsibility prevented ROI pushing the forgery allegations then CHL win an annulment and the slate is clean. Whether ROI would wish to propose forgery again I don't know. I don't think a finding of state responsibility by the AC would prevent them from doing so but presumably, CHL could cite such a finding by the AC. If CHL does win then, realistically, ROI only has forestry breach claims left and that, on the face of it, looks incredibly weak ground. The question then becomes do they drag it out for a couple of years or more with interest costs inflating the claimed figure, or do they look to settle? Got to win the annulment first though of course. |
Posted at 12/3/2019 09:22 by nick2412 Here's what I think Stephen should focus on and it's what provides me with some hope:-CHL was deemed not to have done sufficient due diligence and 'closed its eyes' to third-party fraud. The Minotte precedent was used. Fortunately, (for potential annulment purposes) the Tribunal seemingly messed up and didn't allow CHL to submit facts on their due diligence in respect of Minotte. CHL was only allowed to submit on the law and expressly prevented from presenting facts (such as the due diligence they did do). As CHL says this was like fighting with one hand tied behind their back. So CHL has submitted that it was denied a 'right to be heard' and there was a 'manifest excess use of powers' by the Tribunal. All sorts of breaches of the Tribunal's own procedural orders happened as well. ROI then came back and stated Minotte wasn't the decisive decision making factor. CHL then move on to international law and suggest that no state can use allegations of forgery or third party forgery if the state itself was involved. ROI reply that international law/state responsibility doesn't apply because Minotte *was* the decisive factor. S0 ROI jump from saying Minotte was not relevant to saying (when they are digging in a hole on state responsibility) that Minotte was the decisive factor. We all know the decision could go either way, but that shows CHL have got compelling annulment points that ROI are struggling on. |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions
Hot Features
Premium
