Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[mrshaungcm] 03/3/2016 06:35

delisting would stop the shorters - and would be good if the company won a big pay out

[carcosa] 03/3/2016 06:23

Subtext being that the LSE decision will require/result in the company delisting?

[karateboy] 02/3/2016 19:55

Short RNS implies that the company may have already got few backers lined up for any cash they want to raise. Any way my glass is half full as far as CHL is concerned!

[daddy warbucks] 02/3/2016 16:59

If we win this part of the case, we may need legal advice for any appeal by ROI.If we lose this part of the case, we may need legal advice for any appeal we make.Oh to be a lawyer. ;0)

[pembury] 02/3/2016 16:54

Yes long awaited company update and you get that!

[weegeordie] 02/3/2016 16:53

I think that there is quite a bit of sub-text here that is written in invisible ink - maybe someone has the lemon juice to decipher it.
WG

[ohisay] 02/3/2016 16:48

Quite ..
The legal costs during this current waiting period should logically be minimal / nothing.
I'm pleased somebody else shares my total confusion about all this.
I agree its even like they may have been informally told the license issue is unproved/ against you so its plan B with a capital provider.
Its all down to what Ridlatama were doing at the end of the day - one way or another.

[pb01] 02/3/2016 16:30

Agree it was a poor RNS.

I am going to write to the company and see if I get a better explanation.

On the DQ Shares interview I am sure he said the legal costs were fully paid up to December. The legal costs during this current waiting period should logically be minimal / nothing. So I don't understand the RNS stating 'to secure additional working capital for the Company as a result of the provision for accelerated costs in connection with the ICSID international arbitration case'

Could it be the fraud decision has been communicated to both parties (prior to it being announced publicly) and CHL are preparing for the next legal phase already?

All a bit of a mystery really.

[ohisay] 02/3/2016 16:09

For the record I'm out FWIW - of course not much .
Any company that issues such a poorly written RNS deserves a kick up the backside.
I'm really disappointed.Do they think we are idiots?
Put it another way - how much do they know and how much are they telling you.??

[andy] 02/3/2016 15:23

Yes and not a surprise really, legal bills are expensive and they are now fighting on two fronts!

Us non perma bulls have been expecting this situation, and unless they do a discounted placing, it's hard to see how they will raise a decent slug of money with their only 'asset' under legal dispute.

I bet the Indo's enjoyed reading that RNS!

[bad robot] 02/3/2016 13:09

I will make this post of this month.



karmastuartra 2 Mar'16 - 10:14 - 1533 of 1556 9 0

Debbiegoon sums it up!

[bad robot] 02/3/2016 12:52

Let's not talk about the sells coming thru on this thread ok, let's talk only "probably" buys

[daddy warbucks] 02/3/2016 11:23

RossTrying to confuse me with those big words. ;0)We could argue till the cows come home, but I think we will know one way or the other shortly.Good Luck.

[daddy warbucks] 02/3/2016 11:12

Am I correct in thinking ICSID rules state both parties have to agree to publication before it goes onto the website?Could be in the appeals stage for one of the parties involved.

[daddy warbucks] 02/3/2016 11:07

I am wondering if a few people have put a short on this, which appears to be backfiring.

[lex artis] 02/3/2016 11:04

why is this company still valued at 21.2m?

Considering either boom or administration.

If administration is a possibility would it be closer to 1m-2m mcap?

[daddy warbucks] 02/3/2016 11:03

Just to add. At the end of the document hearings, both parties were asked to address a number of questions when submitting a 50 page brief. I think some of those questions relate to the other matters surrounding the 'merits'.

[pb01] 02/3/2016 11:03

That's correct DW. The RoI argued that the alleged fraud was the key issue and therefore the question of fake licences etc should be brought forward as this was instrumental to the whole case. If the RoI lose this next round its game over for them.

Think Rossannan is correct also though they may have to be a formal written Merits before Quantum. Although the result of the fraudulent hearing is likely to form the majority of the merits case and therefore this is not likely to drag on for ages. Furthermore if RoI lose the fraud case their best face saving and lowest cost option is to settle asap anyway.