Cic Capital Share Discussion Threads

[the diddymen] 08/6/2015 19:18

Goulding I have started to look for SB's statement re change in accounting policy but everytime I start looking at the posting history I come across daft statements by you. Here is one regarding the liberation of CICC post loss of NOMAD/listing:

'In other words, the company can get with its business, without Nomads interfering at every stage of a company's progress. Great move by SB and the BOD.

LOL. SlL,will be trying to find downside now that he and his crooked cronies ARE WRONG YET AGAIN!,,'

Slightly ironic Mixi that they should sue the NOMAD if it was such a cathartic moment for the company.

[the diddymen] 08/6/2015 19:02

Goulding on the deluded thread: 'Do you really think they are that stupid BB? It will only have been taken after long legal consultations. SB doesn't take on Court cases to lose them.'

Well Goulding sometimes I just have to conclude that they must be stupid.

[goulding1215] 08/6/2015 15:24

Where does it sat that TD. Proof positive of that statement, Please, unless another figment of your vivid imagination whereby you pass of bollix as truth. Dope.

[the diddymen] 08/6/2015 10:06

BB the Company has told us that the results will be bad, albeit on the basis of a change in accounting policy. They might just as well have done the deed and published. They have not which suggests that there is another reason for not publishing, which is likely to be problematic. I suspect the strategy is to delay the 'problem' as long as possible and SB is making a pretty good job of that so far.

[gtfc1] 08/6/2015 09:06

Big week maybe, all come together!

[brian boru] 08/6/2015 07:37

TD, I've come to the conclusion that the 2014 accounts were so flipping bad and would need to include so many adjustmensts to previous years audited accounts that the board would look total fools for allowing such glaring, dodgy, misleading inaccuracies to be published in past years.

They most likely have a plan B to ditch CICC and float one of the subsidiaries that hasn't traded in the past, aimvho bla bla bla

[the diddymen] 08/6/2015 07:25

Well another week gone. Just getting a listing for a subsidiary of this dog will feel as if the Group has made a profit for once. I still cannot understand how Cowley can allegedly say (see LSE) that everything is in place for the CICG listing, yet shareholders have not seen a set of accounts for the year ended 31/01/2014 for CICC. Same people, same MO.

[macnai] 07/6/2015 16:37

America's Trade Battle Plan with China in Asia-Pacific: TPP
hxxp://www.pinnacledigest.com/blog/aaron-hoddinott/us-reloads-navy-pacific

[slowfast] 07/6/2015 12:41

Do you think anyone is remotely interested in your drivel?LOL.

[philfromfrance] 07/6/2015 09:29

If you do not have a case, perhaps you just bring an action which will not be defended, win as you are the only one in court - but that is a hollow victory by a cynic & is as meaningless as a Stewie promise?!! lol

[papillon] 06/6/2015 22:38

"Gotham failed to provide either Acknowledgement of Service or a Defence." Could Mr Rawlinson do the same, phil? After all it's going to be rather inconvenient and expensive for him to journey all the way to Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, to both attend the court proceedings and to give evidence. If he doesn't have to do so and if the Canadian court hasn't the authority to make him do so or to accept it's verdict then there is always the possibility he could just stick two fingers up at the Canadian court with impunity.

[philfromfrance] 06/6/2015 21:36

QPP used the 'wet paper bag' defense - took Gotham to court in a jurisdiction it could ignore!!
Is Stewie doing the same, threatening the same & is in fact 'the same'?!!! lol

[papillon] 06/6/2015 19:16

phil. QPP won a court judgement against Gotham in the UK. Gotham just ignored it. They didn't recognise the UK court judgement. Therefore why did QPP go to all that expense? A PR exercise? Will Rawlinson recognise a Canadian court judgement if it went against him? It must be doubtful!!


Court judgement won against Gotham City Research
Tue, 9th Sep 2014 07:00

RNS Number : 1297R

Quindell PLC

09 September 2014

Embargoed for release until 7.00 Tuesday 9 September 2014

Quindell Plc

("Quindell", the "Company" or the "Group")

Court judgement won against Gotham City Research

Quindell Plc (AIM: QPP.L), a market leading global provider of professional services and digital solutions, announces that it has received judgement in its favour in its libel action against Gotham City Research LLP ("Gotham").



On 22 April 2014, the Board of Quindell announced that it was aware of a publication by Gotham and that it rejected the assertions raised in that note and considered that note to be highly defamatory, deliberately misrepresentative and that Quindell entirely rejected the conclusions that were made.



On 30 April 2014, libel proceedings were issued in the High Court against Gotham on behalf of Quindell and others. On 23 July 2014, the High Court granted permission for the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim to be served out of the jurisdiction on Gotham in Delaware and these were validly served on 29 July 2014. Gotham failed to provide either Acknowledgement of Service or a Defence.



The Board of Quindell announces that it (and its fellow Claimants including Robert Terry, Chairman of Quindell) has now received judgement in their favour from the High Court against Gotham.



The process of the evaluation of quantum in damages will begin at the end of November 2014.

Tony Bowers, Senior Independent Director and Vice Chairman of Quindell said: "We are pleased that following the co-ordinated shorting attack led by Gotham and others, we have been able to successfully win judgement from the High Court in our claim for libel against Gotham.

Whilst it is disappointing that Gotham has not been prepared to submit itself to the scrutiny of the English Courts, we have consistently stated that we believe the Gotham publication was both defamatory and deliberately misrepresentative and it is pleasing to receive validation of our claim and success in this matter. The Company will continue to pursue actions of this type, where necessary, to protect its reputation and the best interests of its shareholders."

[philfromfrance] 06/6/2015 16:28

GOULDING - "Do you really think they are that stupid BB? It will only have been taken after long legal consultations. SB doesn't take on Court cases to lose them."

Could just be that he wins some by default & loses some which he then ignores, even after losing on appeal?!!!!!!!!!! We have proof of that - what proof do you have eh? lol

[goulding1215] 06/6/2015 14:39

Do you really think they are that stupid BB? It will only have been taken after long legal consultations. SB doesn't take on Court cases to lose them.

[brian boru] 06/6/2015 07:54

looking more doubtful as every month passes............and regarding the legal case against the nomad, shirley all the defendant have to say is that CICC failed to issue audited accounts (and have still not) and were duly excluded from AIM ........ having said that I'm a holder here and don't want to write it off just yet!

[slowfast] 04/6/2015 13:22

However your view/opinion,may be garbage.Time will tell,,,I'm off on a long trip so I won't miss you.LOL

[papillon] 04/6/2015 12:56

JoeYangtze
Today 10:43
Sounds like somebody that has been institutionalised, and has just got out. Probably fed up with the leaks in the caravan..

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Is that the fate that awaits you, Joe?

How much are your CICC shares currently worth, Joe? Please tell us all what your investment is currently worth, oh wise one! Hope you didn't go overboard and put a load in your SIPP. You need a private pension to supplement the Government old age pension.

[the diddymen] 04/6/2015 12:23

Goulding, I am well aware of the corporate structure. Dr TD

[the diddymen] 04/6/2015 08:11

Slowfast. when there is no or misleading information you have to make decisions on indirect evidence. The indirect evidence here, in our view, is dire for shareholders. While you cannot do anything until the companies list somewhere/sometime, you can at least get perspective on the value of your investment. You can see from the posts on this side of the fence that we feel there is little or no value in the 'group'.

[philfromfrance] 04/6/2015 07:33

slowfast - keep taking the laxatives, as your posts are becoming more 'CONstipated'!!!!!

[slowfast] 04/6/2015 05:47

As ever TD,utter tripe.The vast majority of shareholders in general,don't really know what's going on do they?They get snippets now and then.However we do know that the company is re-listing,but don't know when,and I for one am relaxed.You on the other hand,equally hasn't got a clue but are actively trying to spread dismay and turmoil,because of a personal grudge with another shareholder.That's why,imo,you are utterly pathetic.LOL.

[the diddymen] 03/6/2015 18:33

slowfast, but as shareholders you should know what is going on, and you do not. I will not repeat myself, but SB is playing fast and loose and it is not in shareholder interests.

[slowfast] 03/6/2015 16:13

As usual a lot of opinion without knowing what's really going on.I'm not for one minute saying that I'm in the know,however there's just as much 1+1=3 posting on this board as there is on the others so let's cut out the arrogance and the bitterness(FAT CHANCE)and have a bit of decorum(fat chance)LOL.