All Active Asset Capital Share Discussion Threads

[the modeller] 22/11/2022 07:50

*RB attempting to cash in on the carcass of Aaqua . . .

[daddycoold] 22/11/2022 05:42

I'd agree. He has conveniently moved the focus away from AAA, and plays Aaqua as the Victim, he's squandered and mismanaged the cash, if you like conspiracies perhaps Candy was in on the deal to bring down Aaqua and take the focus away. All that's left now is RB cashing in on the Carcass of Aaqua, and pretty sure AAA won't see any of that action either.

[jeffbezcoco] 21/11/2022 19:42

Some thin skinned people on this thread. I’m invested here significantly like the rest. But pretending AAQUA isn’t a massive f up isn’t any use to anymore. Bonnier should have had launched months ago, but he didn’t. He spent millions of excessive staff and wage structure. All fine but when you can’t even launch an app, it looks like bad management to me. And he has history.

[steveberyl] 19/11/2022 17:22

Dont think this will ever happen. Like many before it will gradually fade and disappear. Rich mens plaything.

Another nomad failing Investors. Toothless FCA like 3 wise Monkeys.

[the modeller] 19/11/2022 10:37

Project Lazarus

[ianbonjour1] 18/11/2022 11:59

jeffbezcoco
You need to read the papers before making negative assumptions. Whilst you might dearly wish this enterprise to fail most of us want it to succeed.

[daddycoold] 18/11/2022 11:51

They were launching Q4 2022. According to the court papers

[jeffbezcoco] 17/11/2022 21:57

Both slippery characters!! Seems like AAQUA was burning though money with no clear launch strategy.

[daddycoold] 17/11/2022 18:42

Glorified piece of journalism without knowing the facts

[ianbonjour1] 17/11/2022 09:27

And NC is not 'slippery'?
You're havin' a larf.

[jeffbezcoco] 16/11/2022 22:57

AAQUA demise well laid out. Well worth a read. RB sounds like a slippery character indeed
hxxps://www.ricemedia.co/aaqua-failed-startup-singapore/

[the modeller] 15/11/2022 08:47

Even Jordan Belfort couldn t persuade Jezza to put his sheckles into this.

[daddycoold] 15/11/2022 06:51

Essentially Bonnier offered Candy GBP13.5 million to go and buy his disputed boom shares back. Candy then went on an extortion racket and threatened to publicly expose Aaqua unless Bonnier came up with more money. Gave him 2 hrs to settle, of course it didn't happen and the bad publicity happened causing the crash and carnage in Aaqua group. Later Candy's claim became unsuccessful. Leaving Aaqua in pieces. So go figure, the damages are huge.

[ianbonjour1] 14/11/2022 23:17

Oh dear, Jeremiah is back again

[the modeller] 14/11/2022 20:54

Bonnier is flying a kite.

[ianbonjour1] 14/11/2022 19:30

DC provided this link a couple of days ago but there is a pay/register wall:

hxxps://www.law360.com/articles/1527960?copied=1

[mrsqueezy] 14/11/2022 16:05

Thx for the update! Light at the end of the tunnel for AAA & AAQUA then!Where do you obtain the court documents you reffered to?

[daddycoold] 14/11/2022 15:40

Yes. Very official. Court papers served last week

[mrsqueezy] 14/11/2022 14:21

Wow! Is this official DC?

[daddycoold] 14/11/2022 12:02

Seems like Candy Ventures is well and truly on the hook for £100+ million for asset destruction due to false WFO

[daddycoold] 10/11/2022 17:57

9th Nov, counter claim... keep up

[el cid48] 09/11/2022 23:00

That’s not new(s)

[daddycoold] 09/11/2022 21:25

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.Candy Ventures is represented by Alec Haydon QC of Brick Court Chambers, instructed by Grosvenor Law.The defendants are represented by Stephen Robins QC of South Square Chambers and Hermione Williams of New Square Chambers, instructed by Wallace LLP.The case is Candy Ventures Sarl v. Aaqua BV and others, case number CL-2022-000367, in the Commercial Court, Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1527960?copied=1

[daddycoold] 06/11/2022 15:00

Whoppeee a new webpage.. Sentiance really know how to generate excitement