All Active Asset Capital Share Discussion Threads

[the modeller] 14/9/2022 09:22

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.

[daddycoold] 14/9/2022 09:13

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.

[the modeller] 14/9/2022 08:44

Aaquaverse is only one of three counterparties in the underlying claim.

[daddycoold] 14/9/2022 08:29

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."

[the modeller] 14/9/2022 08:01

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.

[daddycoold] 14/9/2022 07:52

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.

[the modeller] 14/9/2022 07:38

Apologies but the link just states:The underlying claim against Aaquaverse was also struck out.

[mrsqueezy] 14/9/2022 07:29

All struck out, read the article.

[the modeller] 14/9/2022 07:08

But the underlying claim against Aaqua BV, and Robert Bonnier is not struck out?

[daddycoold] 13/9/2022 20:45

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.

[robrob1690] 12/9/2022 10:48

Surely we need a company announcement fast if only to inform us shareholders who, let's be honest have been treated abysmally throughout.

[kaos3] 12/9/2022 09:45

can someone elaborate - aaqua is (it looks to me) worth nothing atm as a business. even DEV (group member) ditched it (not said openly).

How is sentience doing?What is the weighting of Sentience vs aaqua valuation (prior and after the mess)?

[the modeller] 12/9/2022 09:37

Plainly the courts will decide who the net paying party is.

[ianbonjour1] 12/9/2022 09:31

Demonstrable loss is such. The courts will decide.

[the modeller] 12/9/2022 07:46

It appears CVS are sanguine about recoverability. I believe CVS can be equally sanguine about a consequential loss claim from a freezing order that only lasted for 36 days'.

[lordcsuka1] 08/9/2022 10:14

Law360, London (September 7, 2022, 5:02 PM BST) -- The target of property entrepreneur Nick Candy's High Court share-fraud lawsuit says he is owed up to £150 million ($172 million) in damages from falsely obtained worldwide freezing orders that allegedly turned his technology company into a "credit risk."

Lawyers representing Robert Bonnier, who made his name as a dotcom-era technology investor, told the court on Wednesday that freezing orders obtained by Candy against his company, Aaqua BV, should not have been issued. A freezing order was discharged on Aug. 31 after Candy failed to stump up £1.5 million in cash or obtain a £10 million bank guarantee.

"It is now clear that the WFOs against the defendants were made on a false basis and ought never to have been made," Bonnier argued in documents submitted to court. 

Lawyers for Bonnier say in court documents that his business was worth £195 million before the freezing orders were granted and is likely to have lost between 50% and 75% of its value. Bonnier is asking the High Court for an inquiry into damages. But the court refused to expedite that process on Wednesday.

Stephen Robins QC, counsel for Bonnier and his company, said they have "been left exposed to a credit risk we never should have faced." Candy has "misstated" the value of his assets and has "refused to answer legitimate questions about the accounts that have been put before the court," Robins added.

Candy is suing Bonnier and his companies in an effort to get back shares in Audioboom Group PLC, a popular podcast platform he swapped in a business deal. Candy claims that his fellow entrepreneur lied to him about having interest from Apple and luxury brand LVMH in a new social media platform to encourage investment.

Candy alleges that he was a victim of a conspiracy after giving up 1.5 million shares in Audioboom, which is listed on the U.K.'s Alternative Investment Market.

Bonnier is accused in the claim of making false representations about the prospects of Aaqua to get Candy Ventures to invest. Bonnier falsely claimed that Apple Inc. and LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton were "founding partners" of his company, which was "critical" to Candy Venture's decision to invest, the lawsuit says.

Aaqua, which describes itself as a "social experience" focused on people's "passions," has denied the claims and says they will be contested through the courts.

The company says the freezing orders caused serious damage to the reputations of Aaqua and Bonnier and subsequently led external investors to nix proposed investments. The orders also caused panic among the company's 190 employees, some of whom chose to leave, the defendants say.

Aaquaverse Pte. Ltd., which is based in Singapore, also had to file for insolvency protection as a result of the WFOs, according to court documents.

Alec Haydon QC, counsel for Candy and his investment vehicle Candy Ventures Sarl, told the court that the freezing orders were being used as a "convenient scapegoat" to explain Aaqua's financial difficulties. The freezing injunction was in play only between July 26 and Aug. 31, Haydon said.

"Aaqua was a company that had already been run into the ground and was already contemplating insolvency," Haydon added.

He said the court should bear in mind the difference between losses caused by the allegations of fraud in the proceedings and losses caused by the WFOs.

According to the claim, Candy Ventures was persuaded to sign three agreements in February 2021 based on false statements about the involvement of Apple and LVMH in Netherlands-based Aaqua. The company now wants the High Court to declare these agreements "validly rescinded."

Under a purchase agreement signed by the two companies, Aaqua paid £6.8 million to Candy Ventures and gained an 18.12% share in Audioboom, the claim reads. Candy Ventures would pay Aaqua €7.5 million ($7.4 million) for 15,000 block shares in return.

Candy Ventures says the information it relied on to enter into this agreement was "false" and that at no time since it invested has the company been given any evidence that Apple or LVMH had planned to put money in.

[ianbonjour1] 08/9/2022 09:19

DC, do you have a link to that news please?

[daddycoold] 08/9/2022 06:16

Looks like Aaqua is going after Candy now. Counter sueing claiming damages for a false accusation and no doubt the impact on the business venture...

[the modeller] 07/9/2022 01:44

The software stores the lexicon bruv.

[sunnyday4] 04/9/2022 16:43

To my view this aint over yet. It might take a little longer though.

[daddycoold] 03/9/2022 08:27

Master. I'm no clairvoyant, but there's been little to no news at Candy's case. Especially the fact that he needed to put his money were is mouth is. If he hasn't. Then wonderful, though it does raise questions on the legal system in the UK, that is can go around making accusations and having them backed up with a World Wide Freeze of Assets. Personally I would have liked to see proof of his claim. Aaqua on the other hand has taken the opportunity to shift all its chess pieces around. 4 yrs or work and nothing to show its investors, what a complete waste of time and money if that be the case. Now faced with economic doom of a faltering economy, we'll let's just say the future has just become hidden under an extremely dark cloud.

[the modeller] 03/9/2022 02:30

You re an absolute melt.