Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[tom111] 24/8/2015 09:48

coley15 everything is taking a hit but it was suggested here that CHL would not be caught up in this and would be a special case.The US is doing fine and hopefully this will blow itself out.China has plenty of ammo gla

[debbiegee] 24/8/2015 09:06

Only just looked at monitor I guess many traders wiped out with margin calls today and having to sell anything they can.
MMS ALSO JUST SLASH STOCKS WHERE THE CAN WHEN THEY HAVE PUNTERS BY THE SHORT AN CURLIES.

[Sorry about caps lock its a bit stuck and Ive been awake since 7 o clock Fri morning more or less !]

[debbiegee] 24/8/2015 09:02

DROPPED FOR MATES RATES OR SHORTERS CLOSING ?
fUNNY HOW ON THE LOS OF THE DAY 50KS or 105k goes through while we are left on the phone or for 1 reason or another cant get any ?
Being as chl is not a sets stock anymore 1 cant officially pit an order on the book.
You can leave an order which mms may or may not remember .
Shorting boss got a deal with mmms or what ?

[buywell3] 24/8/2015 09:01

What money is that then ?

How much is left in the petty cash and tea club now ?

[coley15] 24/8/2015 08:58

Where's Tom and his prophetic 'told you so's? Can't be long ....

[daddy warbucks] 24/8/2015 08:39

I wonder if David Quinlivan is thinking of retiring after this is all settled?Will Churchill be wound up and the money distributed?With the turmoil in the markets at the moment, Churchill COULD be in a great position to takeover a producing asset, should a settlement arrive soon.Does Mr Quinlivan have the desire to see that through?

[buywell3] 24/8/2015 08:35

10p anyone ?

[weegeordie] 24/8/2015 08:34

could be a roll.

[daddy warbucks] 24/8/2015 08:33

When you get regular amounts like 5 or 10 k, they are shorts. In other stocks they can be 50, 100, or upwards, but Churchill shares are tightly held, so you won't get those type of sells at the moment. Strange to see 2x 25k buys and so hadn't changed as I typed this.

[daddy warbucks] 24/8/2015 08:25

Here come the shorters!

[apfindley] 23/8/2015 19:45

Don't forget GWMO in the morning.They've been talking about it all weekend, seems like a lot of money will be going there first thing Monday. The email was proof that GWMO is worth many times more, and once news officially breaks, it will multibag. Don't miss out.

[baxter99] 23/8/2015 19:04

Rossannan - I have court experience and know that what seems like a dead cert may not turn out that way. It depends on the evidence, the credibility of the witnesses, the effectiveness of the barristers and the prejudices of the judge(s). However, miscarriages of justice are most likely less than 5%. Only the Churchill executives and barristers will know the true strength of their case, whereas we have to surmise... alot.

However, it must not be forgotten that one of the most significant developments happened over four years ago when Rachmat Gobel and Fara Luwia (both Indonesian and both successful in business) jointly invested £7.7m for 16% of the company, paying 40p when the share price was around 25p (why would they do that?). It is for this reason I keep the faith.

"Churchill Mining Plc (AIM: CHL) is pleased to announce the completion of the placing announced on 3 May 2011. The private placement of 19,345,000 ordinary shares was made at 40 pence per share to Mr. Rachmat Gobel and Ms. Fara Luwia, through a jointly-held company majority-owned by Mr. Gobel raising £7,738,000. The price of 40 pence per share represented a 60% premium to the 20-day volume weighted average share price as of 28 April 2011, the day prior to the execution of the subscription agreement. The shares represent approximately 16.0% of the enlarged issued ordinary share capital of Churchill. The new ordinary shares will rank pari passu with the Company's existing ordinary shares and trading is expected to commence on 9 June 2011. The Company is also pleased to announce that, in conjunction with this strategic investment, the Board is being strengthened by the appointment of Mr. Rachmat Gobel, Ms. Fara Luwia and Mr.
Gregory Radke to the Board, each in the capacity of a Non-Executive Director.

[stephen1946] 23/8/2015 18:03

whilst a charge of contempt of court cannot be brought by the tribunal, the next best thing is to ask the question, fundamental to the whole case, order no 20, and let ROI put their own neck in the noose.

Judgement would/could be made then and proceed to next stage. imho.

[debbiegee] 23/8/2015 17:26

CHL say the COURT decision on this round could take months .
The court is not the only route we are going down.
Roi witnesses have already shown they are not credible then blatently dont turn up instead of perjuring themselves.
There are lots of questions as to whether they will further imcriminate or humiliate themselves on the world stage or can they come graciously to a face saving settlement ?
We have made arrangements for funds so it looks like we are prepared to go all the way if neccesary but would ROI rather clear the mess up quicker and cheaper ?
Can they offer what is acceptable to shareholders in an OOC ?

[dave444] 23/8/2015 17:04

Bottom line is CHL say this issue will not be solver for months and the. Have to continue to full hearing after which a decision will be made.On other tribunal histories you are looking at circa a yeast after final hearing to get a final decision!

[debbiegee] 23/8/2015 16:43

There was always a chance this latest hearing would not have taken place due to further ROI incredibility and humiliation.
My guess is the hearing took place because they have not been able to agree settlement terms [yet]
IMO The hearing as far as roi is concerned was only a farce they have to continue with and they are still showing blatent contemp as in their minds they are sorting it their way.
As has been discussed before Noor practically had no choice other than not to turn up as he had already proven himself to be an incredible witness and would have perjured himself whatever he had said at the hearing.
My guess is the settlement talks are at loggerheads with ROI wishing to pay as little as possible and CHL holding the ace cards sticking it out for a fair payment.

[stephen1946] 23/8/2015 15:58

To further clarify, re-enactment; we need first to see, enactment, which is a law, decree, command, order, authorise, ratify.

Therefore, order no 20 concedes that enactment occurred and that Churchill was indeed awarded the disputed license.

Re-enactment is that law, defined, was it in handwritten form or official format, or if withdrawn was it authorised by official body.

Churchill answer would appear to be in public domain whereas ROI is shrouded in secrecy, deceit and lies. really don't see this taking much more time, mainly because of mud that is likely to be thrown at ROI, the longer it goes on, order no 20 is in my view a killer blow. ROI has to walk away.

[daddy warbucks] 23/8/2015 15:40

I can understand what you mean, but it was Churchill who brought the claim to the ICSID and have always been classed as the claimants in the case. As you say, if both are asked the question then it doesntr wally matter.

[stephen1946] 23/8/2015 15:07

my understanding is ROI brought the case to prove Churchill fraud. therefore ROI are claimants. but on question 20 both are asked same question so makes no difference.

[daddy warbucks] 23/8/2015 12:46

StephenChurchill are the claimants. The ROI are respondents.