Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[tivoliworldgaming] 11/5/2016 08:07

Most Oxus holders saying they are not in this and are just missing out because of their experience from Oxus. I do not believe in learning from them kind of financial mistakes. As it can stop one from the big time gains further down the line.

[fission453] 11/5/2016 07:56

Massive investment on my part...bought £10K's worth to prove the vermin BR wrong once again!

[bad robot] 11/5/2016 07:53

This is going nowhere except 0p.

[andy] 11/5/2016 06:45

woo hoo!

What was the reason for "her" decision?

[riffraff1] 11/5/2016 01:47

I heard on DQ's investor presentation with justin waite as provided on here that after the forgery decision there are still other issues to be arbitrated.
Ccan anyone elaborate on what other issues there are to be addressed please?

[neo26] 10/5/2016 23:28

really interesting now..

CHL are quietly confident they will win the authenticity case.

This is getting interesting day by day. If CHL win the authenticity case then roi will lose.

I truly believe someone in the govt may have had a word with roi with regards to their default...

[patviera] 10/5/2016 22:50

Debbie has soldOnwards and upwards

[bad robot] 10/5/2016 21:36

How long do I need to wait to get an answer

I am still waiting for an answer from our "1st world" scumbag, stephanie1946


Maybe she could answer my questions.

when did she buy the shares in CHL?

why does she think she been stitched up when she bought shs after a claim was already in progress?

Does a gambling granny deserve any rewards, just because she's a granny?

why she thinks when she gambled on black and it's red, it's fouled play?
why does she want compensation money from a country she calls a third world cesspit?



IN BR WE TRUST

[bad robot] 10/5/2016 21:31

Warning 0p




Hope this helps

[stephen1946] 10/5/2016 21:29

Lindsay sandiford is not going to be the only climbdown, how about CHL next?

ROI joining the civilised world.

[frak] 10/5/2016 21:20

Looks like the $20b+ worth of contracts with the EU has got Linsay Sandiford of the hook! ...for now at least! Money talks. Barbaric country!

[bad robot] 10/5/2016 19:31

Once 17p gets taken out a very quick stampede to 10p. The chart does not lie. Artificially being held by MMS, they want to palm those shares they have on the books to the mugs





Hope this helps

[bad robot] 10/5/2016 19:29

How long do I need to wait to get an answer

I am still waiting for an answer from our "1st world" scumbag, stephanie1946


Maybe she could answer my questions.

when did she buy the shares in CHL?

why does she think she been stitched up when she bought shs after a claim was already in progress?

Does a gambling granny deserve any rewards, just because she's a granny?

why she thinks when she gambled on black and it's red, it's fouled play?
why does she want compensation money from a country she calls a third world cesspit?



IN BR WE TRUST

[stephen1946] 10/5/2016 19:28

The news that Cameron said, "THE MOST CORRUPT NATIONS" To the queen will get ROI in the frame thats for certain, and how can he justify getting anybody to invest £bns in a corrupt country. This news is highly significant and will generate huge momentum and grow into a massive assist to CHL. The press will dive into this for weeks, chl will be a massive beneficiary, even oxus might benefit.

[bad robot] 10/5/2016 19:27

why is it when I comment no one posts? It can't be so bad?

[bad robot] 10/5/2016 18:16

I can feel a big tanking is coming.


Hope this helps.

[andy] 10/5/2016 17:36

8 May'16 - 20:36 - 24501 of 24504 0 0 (premium)

Andy,

How could the upside be infinite?


-------

Because we do not know the potential upside until any award or offer is made.

If, say, a $1 billion award was made, the the upside would be $1 billion divided by the number of shares in issue, less the price you made your bet at.


But we Do know the downside, because 0 is the bottom, so currently around 19 points so you can play your stake per point accordingly, you know your maximum loss.

[dandick] 10/5/2016 16:04

You on a come down BR??

[carcosa] 10/5/2016 15:31

I make references below to hxxp://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7194.pdf which is last months' $1.38b award (Crystallex v Veneuzela) after 4 years with the ICSID. Well worth a good read!

The ICSID usually makes an interest award based on its own determination. ISCID can also award a variety of interest rate types e.g. an award’s grant of simple interest from the date of expropriation to the date of award and compound interest on the principle and accumulated simple interest from the date of award to the date of payment.

Where there has been injury or a simple breach of contract then ICSID usually only award simple interest; which I think is appropriate in CHL's case. However ICSID have recently stated "..the Tribunal is able to discern a clear trend in recent decisions in favor of the award of compound interest" (P257)

As to how much that can be then I think its worth looking at last months $1.38b award where they said interest rate is "6-month average U.S. dollar LIBOR plus 1 per cent per year at the valuation date" (P256) So, I guess that will be less than 2%

There have been occasions when, post ICSID award, there has been an attempt to modify the award to reflect a statutory interest rate (being lower than the award) by appealing to a court outside of the ICSID. Now this may seem very odd in making such an application (which was rightly thrown out because it is precluded by the principles governing recognition of ICSID awards) but it does demonstrate that even once an award is made the actual payment can be years away; which is the tactic that RoI will inherently take, I suspect.

Furthermore RoI are likely to make additional ancillary claims arising from the same subject matter but not subject to ICSID jurisdiction (see Artcle 25 para 83-112). CHL have already mentioned (earlier this year) that they expect to make a claim for legal costs incured prior to making the initial application to ICSID. It is quite possible that ICSID will have to make a determination as to whether they have jurisdiction over this; the likelihood is that they will not and it will return to the Indonesian courts.
Previously Indonesia (Amco v RoI) made a counter-claim for taxes which was rejected by the ICSID so RoI came back with a claim for restitution of taxes which commentators say they almost won.

The end game, as someone on this board pointed out earlier today, is really the ICSID decision on the forgery case. After a positive outcome of that, there are just way too many options for RoI to muddy the waters and legally delay payment for years to come.

As regards the actual claimed value by CHL then we can take some heart from last month's ICSID award for Crystallex claim of $1.38b. (P253) ICSID noted that " The Tribunal is convinced that this figure represents a correct and reasonable assessment of the fair market value of the Claimant’s investment. The result reached is, in the Tribunal’s view, not speculative, but, if anything, may err on the conservative
side, especially given...further contract renewals beyond the 20 years... which would have increased the Claimant’s damages" Sound familiar?

In CHL's claim of course, there was no coal mining activity undertaken so the strength of the DCF calculation is questionable.

BTW I can't see Venuezelua have actually paid yet; but in all prior cases they have eventually done so.

[bad robot] 10/5/2016 15:23

Let's be honest how many of you can live with 0p? All eggs in one basket will end in tears friends?

Only one person been right here, it's Number 1.

Hope this helps