Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[pembury] 17/8/2015 14:21

coming from someone who sold out lol

[tom111] 17/8/2015 13:51

The result will take months and even if they win valuations will then have to be assessed and with coal prices at ultra low prices this will be taken into accountI don't buy the story that it will be valued at the pre dispute price

[oggyrocks] 17/8/2015 12:37

V little volume on all shares I own today.

Think everybody is on holiday.

Note to self - go on holiday. Stop looking at CHL shs price.

[moreforus] 17/8/2015 09:59

lol after 100s of weekend posts the price is flat and there has been 700 quids worth of stock bought....

market in neutral again

[debbiegee] 17/8/2015 09:50

A historic RNS of relevance and importance.

How do you attach a value on what the co was worth before licenses were revoked.?
I wonder if they have any paperwork of what sort of values the suitors put on the co ?
Many here thought as much as £5.00 psh.

In fact on the day of suspension we were not afraid but we thought a T/O or juicy JV was to be announced.
At the time the share price peaked at app 148p and Pala a well respected mining investor was buying huge chunks on the open market I believe pushing his holding up to 34%
There is an rns stating he was not intersted in buying the whole company and he has never sold any [his holding %age has only gone down with dilution.
It is not relevant what the coal project is worth today ,we are suing for the value of the license and project then
There is no way that they want or will be offerred the project back in the future.
We need to be compensated in value for what was taken away from us then. plus intererst !

[mrshaungcm] 17/8/2015 09:43

well - the market is happy at this price and not 9p - so must be some mileage in good news
as usual
DYORamping(TM)

[daddy warbucks] 17/8/2015 09:26

I would also say, if Churchill are handed the licences back, I am sure they would not have any trouble finding a buyer for it or even a j/v with a major company to finance the mining.However I don't think that is their plan.

[anresu] 17/8/2015 09:13

Your question has been answered at least twenty times. CHL have brought to ICSID a case for financial compensation. That is the only matter which is in the power of ICSID to decide.
However, it is not impossible that, if RoI were to offer the licences back and CHL refused the offer, ICSID might reduce any compensation accordingly.

[debbiegee] 17/8/2015 09:01

Roi has in effect withdrawn their accusation of fraud by chl anyway so the hearing was a more or less a farce but more proof for iscid that ROI are unreliable .

[andy] 17/8/2015 08:57

A phrase about a "fat lady singing" springs to mind here!

Was there an official explanation as to why Noor did not attend?

I was wondering whether they could claim illness, or whether an official explanation had been given to the court?


I still go back to my question about could the licences be returned?

Is it within the scope of the hearing for the ROI to offer this? and the court accept it as a final settlement? (plus accrued legal and other costs, of course).

If it is possible for the licences to be restored, the result on the share price might not be as some here anticipate.

[stephen1946] 17/8/2015 08:35

In any criminal trial, under the circumstances in play here namely; wrongful allegation of fraud coupled with non appearance of key witness the case would be thrown out of court.

Arbitration is of course less formal and does not deal in matters of law but more on what is just. The R.O.I. have proved to be, unreliable and evasive, this is where R.O.I. have failed in their case. The Tribunal can only find in CHL favour on the basis of the documents that the tribunal find admissible. imho.

[qut] 17/8/2015 06:14

If a key witness doesn't turn up, isn't that hearing already lost, especially as it was ROI who requested the hearing in the first place?

[bobic] 16/8/2015 22:29

Stephen agree with you 100%.Roi must apologise to CHL.and settle this issue before more humiliations.When u have main witness not turning up the case is lost by ROI.
I bet serious negtiations are ongoing since friday.Tick Tock\\

[m1sak] 16/8/2015 11:49

Thanks Debbiegee-good point

[debbiegee] 16/8/2015 11:06

M1SAK,I understand that if Noors evidence is struck from the record they have nothing agaist us and they have thrown in the towel ?

You see many different opinions and thats healthy !

[m1sak] 16/8/2015 10:34

I am reading that the fact Isran Noor did not turn up as bad news. Churchill obviously wanted to cross examine him and get him in a tight corner with perhaps a mild admission/confession of guilt. The fact that he did nt turn up and his statements have been struck off could be bad news.
After all he is the one that caused this situation, I just hope Churchill have a back up plan.
Thats the way I see it and I may be very wrong.

Another thing-do not read too much into the trade deals and Cameron knowing about Churchill. Govts do not get involved unless lives are at stake, take GCM for instance, I lobbied the Govt some years ago over the non approval of the Phulbari mine and was told by the relevant departments and offices that they do not get involved in small trade disputes. We continue to give aid to some countries even though they are growing faster than us.

[weegeordie] 16/8/2015 10:04

Andy - to begin with CHL did want the licences back and even put it through the Indonesian court system. Once that avenue had been blocked, they then went to ICSID to claim lost development costs, lost revenue and added to that will be legal fees. So, no, they are not looking to getting the mine back. The RoI may be trying to give back the licences in any OOC settlement but I am sure that this will be roundly rejected by the legal agents of CHL.
WG

[debbiegee] 16/8/2015 09:48

I came home and read the 1st post of about 20 and answered it straight away and only afterwards saw it had been well debated.
I think when things are not 100% clear we may all try to read between the lines ?
Lets agree to disagree if we have read something different and hope that CC are guiding us well.
As others have stated its the end result that is important.

[debbiegee] 16/8/2015 09:35

July 30, 2015 The Claimants file a request for the exclusion of evidence

SO THIS IS WHERE YOU ARE SAYING THE OBJECTION IS?

That would be summising because we cannnot be sure this relates to Isran Noors evidence.
If you read the RNS they appear to be surprised that Noor did not turn up as they appeared to be looking forward to grilling him ?
In the RNS it does not apppear that CHL had prior knowledge to Noor not turning up.
So you may be right or maybe on the wrong track ?


To me it sounds like they are saying aaaaawwwwwww he did not turn up in a sarcastic way but jubilant of the fact he did not turn up.
I would say if anyything had leaked it would be that Noor had not turned up and the share price went up.

Hyperthetical of course ,but possible ?

IF THERE IS DOUBT THOUGH WE CANNOT TREAT AS FACT ????

We are all presented with the facts [sometimes undefined] and make our own opinions but debate is great and sometimes we will never know the details.

Lets hope whatever we asked for was due to good guidance from CC [our lawyers]