We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
All Active Asset Capital Limited | LSE:AAA | London | Ordinary Share | VGG017801082 | ORD NPV (DI) |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 53.00 | - | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
01/10/2022 14:32 | Is this a scam then? | festario | |
01/10/2022 13:40 | Still no frickin real news. Sigh | el cid48 | |
01/10/2022 10:49 | How very odd | ianbonjour1 | |
01/10/2022 04:55 | What s your poison vodka or whisky - yummeykins!One won t hurt.Weak man. | the modeller | |
15/9/2022 08:29 | It is clear thatwon't be the case on the basis that CVS were unwilling to stump-up a mere £1.5M to keep the case going. To be honest, they have got themselves into a bit of a muddle with this as their unsubstantiated claims have had a severe negative impact on a stock they bought. I am unsure why you think the transaction will be 'reversed', and clearly CVS are of the same view or they would have coughed-up as ordered by the court. There is a history of some attempting recourse to unsubstantiated claims when they feel buyer remorse on a transaction. | ianbonjour1 | |
15/9/2022 06:14 | Perhaps the most salient commercial point is, where CVS see Audioboom s share price in circa a year if the transaction is reversed. | the modeller | |
14/9/2022 22:09 | Some salient points: The deal in February 2021 was done at circa 450. The price of Boom earlier this year was over 2250. Might those selling @ 450 be somewhat put-out by the loss of potential growth? If one was 'a chancer' might one give a law suit a go? When one is a chancer one often has form in this respect. History is recorded. If one was confident of ones chances £1.5M is peanuts. If one is not confident £1.5M could be seen as more loss to add to the poor timing above. | ianbonjour1 | |
14/9/2022 18:15 | You're wrong, but there is a good case about pub talk with Mike Ashley. Nty nt. | the modeller | |
14/9/2022 16:44 | A material fact is written down on a piece of paper. Pub talk, small talk is wishful thinking | daddycoold | |
14/9/2022 16:19 | If somebody told you something that was misleading in a transaction (and it was witnessed) that is a material fact, is it not? | the modeller | |
14/9/2022 16:12 | Rather negative. Mr. Candy, having decided not to put his money where his mouth is, has confirmed that he was trying his luck. As previously alluded, it would be remarkable for an experienced investor to make such a decision on the basis of 'they told me......' The sums of money involve would justify proof of any interest by large corporations. | ianbonjour1 | |
14/9/2022 15:49 | 1. They allegedly falsely represented the interest from Apple and LVMH 2. Wrt why companies are not solely liable, this is a two way street, e.g., Mr Candy has been joined to the proceedings for the purpose of the Inquiry, so that the Aaqua parties may enforce any damages caused by the freezing orders pursuant to undertakings given by both CVS and Mr Candy personally. Cuckoo Daddio | the modeller | |
14/9/2022 15:04 | I am sure you are correct DC but believe you may be communicating with a machine. | ianbonjour1 | |
14/9/2022 14:21 | What have they falsely represented ? If the court has found Aaquaverse, which is essentially the holding company of Aaqua where Bonnier is involved not guilty. Then how can he be guilty, as he is the caretaker of the companies. The ultimate liability lay with the company and not the directors of it. | daddycoold | |
14/9/2022 08:22 | I think the reporting is accurate. As I understand, it matters as there is still a live claim against Aaqua BV and Robert Bonnier for false representation. | the modeller | |
14/9/2022 08:13 | Could we put it down to bad journalism ? For now what does it really matter ? All we as shareholders are left with is a corporate train wreck where the usual MO of silence still remains. | daddycoold | |
14/9/2022 07:44 | Aaquaverse is only one of three counterparties in the underlying claim. | the modeller | |
14/9/2022 07:29 | It says "freezing orders were discharged and CVS conceded that the orders had been wrongly granted and agreed to pay the Aaqua Parties' costs on the indemnity basis. The underlying claim against Aaquaverse was also struck out." | daddycoold | |
14/9/2022 07:01 | Respectfully, it does not say that. CVS have raised the white flag on the WFO and the court has agreed that Aaquaverse is not party to the underlying claim. Happy to be directed to anything that says the underlying claim against Aaqua BV and Robert Bonnier is completely extinguished. | the modeller | |
14/9/2022 06:52 | Yeah it's says all struck out. Now there's going to be a counterclaim. It will be time for Aaqua to reconcile their accounts and they've no doubt moved their interest away from Boom freeing up funds. As they've closed the door for business, we will no doubt be waiting for their next move as 30+% shareholders of Aaqua. | daddycoold | |
14/9/2022 06:38 | Apologies but the link just states:The underlying claim against Aaquaverse was also struck out. | the modeller | |
14/9/2022 06:29 | All struck out, read the article. | mrsqueezy | |
14/9/2022 06:08 | But the underlying claim against Aaqua BV, and Robert Bonnier is not struck out? | the modeller | |
13/9/2022 19:45 | Wallace successfully secures the discharge of worldwide freezing orders for Aaqua Group Following a series of hearings in the Commercial Court during the past month, worldwide freezing injunctions were discharged over Wallace's clients Aaqua BV, Aaquaverse PTE Ltd and Robert Bonnier (together the "Aaqua Parties"). In late July 2022, the freezing orders were obtained on an ex parte basis by the Luxembourg investment outfit Candy Ventures SARL ("CVS"), which is 90% owned by the well-known businessman, Nick Candy. However, following an urgent application and three hearings held during the Court's vacation period, the freezing orders were discharged and CVS conceded that the orders had been wrongly granted and agreed to pay the Aaqua Parties' costs on the indemnity basis. The underlying claim against Aaquaverse was also struck out.An Inquiry will now be held into the damages caused by the WFOs. Mr Candy has been joined to the proceedings for the purpose of the Inquiry, so that the Aaqua parties may enforce any damages caused by the freezing orders pursuant to undertakings given by both CVS and Mr Candy personally.This was a hugely important outcome for the Aaqua Parties, whose reputation and business operations had been seriously prejudiced by the fact that the freezing orders had been wrongly granted.The Wallace team was led by Partner Oli Goldman with assistance from Senior Associates Josephine Mathew and Philip Blyghton. Stephen Robins KC (of South Square Chambers) and Hermione Williams (of New Square Chambers) were retained as Counsel. | daddycoold | |
12/9/2022 09:48 | Surely we need a company announcement fast if only to inform us shareholders who, let's be honest have been treated abysmally throughout. | robrob1690 |
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