Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[neo26] 24/5/2016 10:10

Its going to be interesting of how much power the icsid has, Roi have stated the licenses are invalid as a result of forgery. The onus is on them to prove the forgery allegations, but it seems they have not done so greatly.

Vital documents which icsid and chl requested have not been provided. Its highly coincidental the log book for 2007 had miraculously disappeared which had details of correspondents between CHL/Ridlatama and Regency of East Kutai.

Mr Isran Noor not showing up to be cross examined was another break thorugh for CHL, i think Quinlivan said Roi arguments was mostly on his statement.

CHL has challenged ROI to provide any docs from police and Roi investigations into forgery to be provided into the tribunal. We know they havent....

Icsid will give reasons for their decision whether for or against forgery, we know if we CHL win Roi will be running like headless chickens.

[oggyrocks] 24/5/2016 08:15

Think that there will be a little run up to the news being released in mid June. This doesn't mean that chl will win, but people will be placing their bets.My view is that it will rise to 20-25p by mid June.

[tburns] 23/5/2016 12:07

Just managed to bag a little over 13k more shares, very hopeful in next update and huge upside potential here now.

[neo26] 23/5/2016 12:06

"...Finally, a Beginner-level basher (also known as a Pitchfork) would
attempt to create confusion in the room by distracting other posters
with satire, name calling and pointless arguments. The idea was to
make sure no serious discussion of the stock"

We know one here, :-)

[debbiegee] 23/5/2016 12:01

Above might be of interest.


Note how the bashers arrive before fundraisings or in this instance where there was a gap before news and a chance to take advantage of forced sellers.
Like you say June is not far away. and most forced sellers have left.

Anything could happen whenever the bottom is found and shorts close and the bottom is bought.
With or without news the turn could be swift

[neo26] 23/5/2016 11:46

Masarap

We shall see, not long to find out now. If ROI had any incriminating evidence against Ridlatama or Churchill you could be rest assured they would have used it in tribunal. One can assume they have nothing...

[masarap] 23/5/2016 11:36

neo,

They still have a decision to make, however, it looks like it will be hard to conclude in favour of ROI given ROI's case relies so heavily on the testimony of Isran Noor's and his evidence has been struck out.

CHL have asked the Tribunal for 'adverse inferences' to be made from a number of things including absence of requested documents, ROI witness contradictions and the failure of Isran Noor to turn up for the hearing. No doubt these 'adverse inferences' will be made as requested. All looks favourable for CHL and there is a surprising amount of transparency and information available in the protocols. It's not a given though as the legal system can throw up illogical surprises. I'd be shocked if the decision didn't go CHL's way.

DQ's words at the December presentation were, 'I am quietly confident we will walk past this authenticity stage'.

[neo26] 23/5/2016 11:24

Masarap

Roi are witholding information, do the tribunal have the jurisdiction to confirm if the licenses are authentic without the docs present?

Or will it just go down on "balance of probability", as Roi have failed to provide the evidence for fraudulent activity.

[masarap] 23/5/2016 11:06

The mid-June time-frame suggested by DQ will probably attract T-traders soon. It's about T15 at present but most brokers only offer T10. That's not to suggest that mid-June is nailed on for an update / decision but DQ has mentioned 'mid-June' very clearly in both his interviews. I thought the wording of the first interview suggested an update whilst the second one seemed to suggest he was anticipating the actual decision.

If ROI lose on authenticity then it appears they don't have any other cards of any great importance to play. Decision time for them. Do they try and settle? Or do they just go the distance and focus on arguing within the tribunal process for the lowest possible award?

We do know that if they go down that line that DQ has intimated that it provides CHL an opportunity to up their valuation to what he deems a more realistic $2b plus. That is because, according to DQ, no value has been assigned for the substantive resources remaining after 30 years mining.

ROI will also be mindful that interest due will also continue to add to the final settlement.

So, if the decision goes against ROI then they have three compelling reasons to want to settle ... avoid further interest, settle a case that isn't great PR for their drive for inward investment and avoid giving CHL the opportunity to increase the value of their claim.

I'd like to be able to say that ROI will struggle to conclude EU and separate UK trade deals until they settle but, as the email correspondence has shown, that's not very realistic. I am still awaiting the 'substantive' reply from the Foreign Secretary on Treaty breach etc. that my local MP anticipated 'very soon' about three weeks ago.

[neo26] 22/5/2016 14:37

Let's take that scenario, even if Mr Noor gave those licenses illegally to Ridlatama, end of the day chl invested in good faith. But why are roi witholding police docs investigating the forgery? If any incriminating evidence was found surely they would have loved to share with the tribunal...Why claim the log book is missing for the same year as the so called offense took place?We shall see...Obviously nothing is guaranteed.

[theorb] 22/5/2016 10:39

One thing which occasionally bothers me is that Regional Governments in Indonesia are very autonomous and powerful.Someone like Noor for example who was/is very corrupt will know powerful people in high places including, one assumes,Chief of Police and judiciary etc in East Kutai. I wonder therefore wonder why the police did not find evidence of forgery by CHL or indeed any incriminating evidence when they investigated documents, and when they examined the fire in Churchill's offices when it would have been relatively easy to plant. Noor or East Kutai government have far more money than CHL at their disposal to grease the right palms. Are they holding something back to be produced at the next stage of proceedings? I hope East Kutai thought things would never have got to this stage and therefore they did not need such a conspiracy, but it would have been relatively easy to stage with so many corrupt officials!

[1kg hamburger] 21/5/2016 15:31

This is International Rescue we have received your message, Thunderbirds are GO

[1kg hamburger] 21/5/2016 15:28

Is there anyone who can help?

[neo26] 20/5/2016 22:29

Can't believe they said they can't find the log book, I bet the tribunal know the full story already.

[neo26] 20/5/2016 22:19

Win or lose those are two outcomes.Then we don't get those nutjobs like gaybot ruining the thread. I'm confident we will win. Holding all the way...

[daddy warbucks] 20/5/2016 21:43

Neo, don't understand your last sentence. Being a listed company means the board have to follow rules which are there for our benefit and protection.If we delist, we would have none of them.

[neo26] 20/5/2016 21:18

Once this is settled then its down to merits of the case, which means there will definitely be compensation paid.Its just a waiting game. I think they should get some kind of funding and delist from stock market.

[stephen1946] 20/5/2016 21:11

Spartikas, made great reading after weeks of quiet on the tribunal front. Appreciate the effort you put in to get the info and share it, cheers mate.

Rettah, ditto your thoughts.

[spartikas] 20/5/2016 20:53

Hi Stephen1946,

The information is from the icisd website. I don't think the ROI have a leg to stand on IMHO.

We shall soon find out! I can see why the directors and major shareholders have invested and supported the funding.

[rettah] 20/5/2016 19:35

Some very good posts. The info comes from the various procedural orders which are quite lengthy at times. Makes a pleasant change to log on and not see half a dozen or more filtered posts.

[stephen1946] 20/5/2016 19:32

Spartikas, where has this info come from? My computer is running at snail pace(live in wem, shropshire) takes ages to download anything. Appreciate any help, and fabulous details from what i have seen so far.

[spartikas] 20/5/2016 17:20

Documents or Category of Documents Requested

The log book or similar Document of the Secretariat of the Mining and Energy Bureau at the Regency of East Kutai, in which applicants and the Secretariat register incoming and outgoing communications during the Relevant Period.

Reply to Objections to Document Requests

This request is irrelevant and immaterial because the Mining and Energy Bureau’s register of all incoming and outgoing communications does not show whether or not the impugned documents are authentic. That is, the register does not resolve who signed or did not sign licenses.
Also, Claimants’ misrepresent Respondent’s position. Respondent did not put the “chronology directly in issue” with respect to the general survey license applications or the exploration license applications.
Respondent notes that despite diligent searches, it has been unable to locate the 2007 log book of the Mining and Energy Bureau.
Respondent will not produce the original of the requested documents at the inspection because Claimants do not explain why the originals are needed. Moreover, Respondent will not be permitted to take these books from East Kutai to Singapore.


Reply to Objections to Document Requests


This document is crucial and it must be produced.
The State tries to avoid this request by redefining the scope of its own case. In this objection (and in a number to follow, see 33, 37 and 40), the State is narrowly defining the scope of relevant and material documents to those that "resolve who signed or did not sign the licenses".
First, this is inconsistent with the State's own document production requests, in which it defines the scope of relevant and material documents far more broadly (see, for example, State DPR 1: "requested documents are relevant and material to Claimants' claim that areas were 'open for licensing' and therefore whether there was a motive to forge and fabricate the Ridlatama licences"; State DPR 2: "requested documents are relevant, because they would show who was responsible for the inclusion of the particular boundaries in the application for the alleged mining licences"; and State DPR 3 "the [SKIP permits] are relevant and material to whether the Ridlatama Companies had SKIP permits, whether the permits are authentic, and whether the permits are reliable indicia of the authenticity of the general survey and exploration licences").
Second, the administrative footprint (or alleged lack thereof) of the Ridlatama Licences has been put directly at issue by the State in its fraud case. This document is relevant and material to that very issue, because it will show the full pattern of engagement between the Ridlatama Group and the Regency of East Kutai.

The Claimants take issue with the State's assertion that they have misrepresented the State's position to the Tribunal. The Claimants' reference to the State putting the chronology of the Ridlatama Licence applications is simple. The State admits that the Ridlatama Group applied for general survey licences, but it alleges that the Claimants' applications were rejected because the EKCP area overlapped with existing valid licences. If this is true, it should be reflected in this log book that "record[s] incoming and outgoing communications with the applicants of Mining Undertaking Licences". The timeline of when applications were made and allegedly rejected or accepted is what the Claimants are referring to when they use the term "chronology" in this request.

The Claimants are troubled by the State's assertion that it has been unable to locate the 2007 log book of the Secretariat of the Mining and Energy Bureau at the Regency of East Kutai. 2007 is the year in which the State alleges that the "pattern" of fraud began. If the State cannot locate this critical document then this will have serious implications for the State's fraud case.
As to the log books of the other years of the Relevant Period, originals of these documents are needed to ensure that they are reliable as pieces of evidence.

Finally, the State’s assertion that "it will not be permitted" - 57 -
to take the log book to Singapore lacks credibility. In any event, if the State truly cannot remove the log book, the Claimants are willing to travel to the Regency to inspect it. However, the Claimants will require that a copy of the entire registration book be produced in any event.

Tribunal's Decision
-------------------

GRANTED
The requested documents appear to be prima facie relevant.
The Tribunal further orders the production of the original log books at the document inspection, due to take place between 16-17 April 2015. In this connection, the Tribunal invites the Respondent to make best efforts to locate the 2007 log book. If the Respondent insists on not being able to bring the original log books to Singapore, the Parties are invited to confer on a date to inspect the original document in East Kutai, it being understood that said inspection would have to take place before the end of the month of April 2015.

[spartikas] 20/5/2016 17:13

Will save the best until the end...