ADVFN Logo

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Hot Features

Registration Strip Icon for alerts Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers

AAA All Active Asset Capital Limited

53.00
0.00 (0.00%)
Last Updated: 00:00:00
Delayed by 15 minutes
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

All Active Asset Capital Share Discussion Threads

Showing 3676 to 3700 of 3825 messages
Chat Pages: 153  152  151  150  149  148  147  146  145  144  143  142  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
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
Chat Pages: 153  152  151  150  149  148  147  146  145  144  143  142  Older

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock