Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[daddy warbucks] 24/3/2016 11:05

It would be interesting to know who initiated a complaint against Churchill leading to an investigation by the LSE.To say people are getting away with all sorts on AIM, and blind eyes being turned, (New World Oil springs to mind amongst many others), it seems strange that this should occur.At the time being investigated, there were so many conflicting stories being given by the ROI, such as forestry issues, then forgery etc, that it was no wonder Churchill couldn't give a proper RNS. They were trying desperately to find out what was going on, appealing to the Courts etc.So who initiated the complaint? Was it politically motivated and if so by who. Someone in the ROI government, but could they initiate a complaint? Or could it be from someone who has been approached by the ROI?When you see what people have got away with, then if Churchill are slapped with a large fine, you will know there are politics at play. If that happens I will be asking more questions.

[temmujin] 24/3/2016 09:39

its not over until the fat lady sings

[daddy warbucks] 23/3/2016 19:45

In the ICSID case, Churchill are the claimants and the ROI are the respondents.

[bad robot] 23/3/2016 19:26

Interesting

a desperate opportunist then, ramping this dead dog and hoping to jump in a spike. aha



rossannan 11 Jan'16 - 17:13 - 31556 of 32147 0 0

Not me, still in CHL though not fully loaded at the moment. Not putting a penny more in CHL than the limit I originally set myself - what happened to OXS doesn't mean that the market owes me one - and now more likely to sell CHL if it spikes on an interim

[bad robot] 23/3/2016 19:26

not putting anymore penny in chl stated in Jan 2016?


New Churchill Mining Thread - CHL
rossannan - 11 Mar 2016 - 12:01:39 - 1647 of 1715
That's me fully loaded at 12.5p, for better or worse. Don't let me buy any more.

[masarap] 23/3/2016 18:46

I think we should leave this to someone with a legal background who knows what they are talking about ros. I doubt if both sides provide proof deemed of equal merit supporting their case that by default it goes to the side making an assertion as you appear to suggest.

[masarap] 23/3/2016 17:48

Patviera, yes directors are likely to follow through and buy unless there have been developments such as settlement talks that make them insiders. Plenty of buying but enough to convince me they are in talks.

[masarap] 23/3/2016 17:41

ros, fully aware of that. Just questioning your logic on why the lower standards would apply to ROI saying there was fraud and, conversely, not for CHL saying there wasn't?

[patviera] 23/3/2016 17:11

What a load of baloneyDirectors said they would buySo why wouldn't they?That's why buyers here will make money

[ireminisces] 23/3/2016 16:26

Note the third main shareholder is Indonesian group in CHL. So who's to say they are not sharing info with ROI in the interest of ROI. Even though we have the swiss and Singapore investors/judges.

Well I think a rights issue would be better to get all loyal shareholders to benefit by allowing them to buy cheaper shares and getting them in before the big rise's...

The directors not buying after issuing in RNS their intention to buy would be the biggest SELL signal one can ever imagine, IF they do buy then that's the biggest BUY signal for all.

@Debbie - possibly. I'm sure you can vouch for last time I appeared and said 8p was time to buy and suggested circa 40p+ based on faria's buying before (major shareholder). Do go back and find the post and timings as the chart moved in correct direction then..

At the moment no new news other than awaiting directors buys ! :)

[debbiegee] 23/3/2016 14:55

If the directors buy it will be freshly printed shares the same as the placing 1s ,
They said the were interested in buying at the same terms as the placing.
We would then probably get an rns.

[masarap] 23/3/2016 14:52

ros, I don't think that makes sense i.e ROI not having to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt otherwise, by the same logic, you would have CHL NOT having to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they held the licenses legitimately. That approach would lead to an impasse. You can't have different standards of justice for the two sides.

Given ROI don't dispute Isran Noor signed the main licenses that were revoked, it should, in theory, be difficult to prove ROI's contention he was tricked into doing so as he refused to give oral evidence and consequently his other submissions were dismissed.

CHL's assets aren't too hard to value - the coal price, proven resource and associated costs isn't too complex but no doubt there will be detailed arguments on both sides. I agree that any award will be at a discount to the figure claimed.

[ireminisces] 23/3/2016 14:51

@Rossannan - Does CHL needsto obtain a court judgment in the jurisdiction where the other party resides or where its assets are located? If CHL wins and ROI decides not to pay.

@Debbie - Directors no longer in closed period so where are the directors buys? £325,000

Remember either party can pay the judges off depends who pays more. However, we have two major shareholders who have the same nationality as two of the 3 judges.. (oppss.. as David Q put it in the presentation)

Does anyone think we will see 11p again?

Thanks.

[debbiegee] 23/3/2016 14:45

I think ROI could try anything and that could be their downfall.
It has sometimes appeared Roi have been able to call the shots and twist ICSID around their little finger with their time wasting demands that have been obliged.

We have however always said if we give them enough rope they will hang themselves.