Cloudified Share Discussion Threads

[wulber] 29/8/2016 22:01

Oxus directors had more to lose than pi's, without a salary for c. 4 years taking options in lieu.Get your facts right and the co sec now trying to build a shareholder group to fight the caseCould happen here too!

[wulber] 29/8/2016 21:56

Stephen 1946You are deluded!This is 50:50

[wulber] 29/8/2016 21:53

Oxs was also through an intl court, no diff here. Need to where double underwear for the possibility of a negative forgery verdict.Been there and felt the effects both emotionally and financially.

[stephen1946] 29/8/2016 21:35

Ross, nothing of the sort.

CHL have the same people in the same company positions now, that they had in the beginning.

Oxus top shelf did a disappearing act after 2 years, no explanation, just went.

[stephen1946] 29/8/2016 21:12

Debbie, agreed, unless you look at the frequency and the small amounts involved, certainly dont think they were cfd traders. Fridays are still up there and worth a look, now generally fri trades are done by 14.00, just a couple after, but this fri these small sells preceeded a 40k buy, ensuring static. Certainly not a normal friday in my humble opinion.

[debbiegee] 29/8/2016 21:06

What you call bot trades are surely the cfd traders who can put a limit sell to take their profits.
We had this as well as we passed 24 and 26 and we will have it again at 30 probably.
I dont know how it is with spread bets but if you own shares you have to put your order in so the automatic trades generally go through 1st as we hit resistances.

[stephen1946] 29/8/2016 20:46

You will also be aware during the next few days of "bot" trades.

Look at last weeks thur, fri trades, each time a tick up was due, a small, "bot" sale trade slipped in. Keeping the price within a tight range.
Once this starts to move it will be in large denominations and MM's will be terrified of getting stung. There are very very few shares out there and even less after tues wed and into next week, then a leak regarding talks will send this into orbit.

MM's would prefer to start at the bottom range, hence the, "bot". 26p, 28p is fine,
40p plus is dangerous for them.

[stephen1946] 29/8/2016 20:34

Oxus was a scam perpetrated by the company, no comparison to any other tribunal case, shead got rumbled.
Where did the original chairman and ceo disappear too? Shead was shoe-horned in as a lemon. Gibbons was a pseudonym. Oxus was a worthy AIM con.

ICSID are forced to give comprehensive reasons for every single dot and comma in the final award, unlike the reasons you give which are based on your experiences nothing else.

BUT this is not going to go the distance, this is a nailed on, OOC settlement.

[wulber] 29/8/2016 20:17

Dont be naive, justice does not always prevail.Please don't get sucked in like i did on a massive overturn on justice, the authorities can manipulate the system, even when its a on the surface a clear cert!Learnt my lesson on Oxus and 30% invested here now, just in case it goea shiite

[wulber] 29/8/2016 20:10

Lots of negatives debiggeeThis is a govt not a company and lots of political behind doors shenanigans, even with our own govt possibly!The courts are impartial, are they?Hmmmmm

[debbiegee] 29/8/2016 19:45

Considering the request of the day was if anybody could think of any negatives in our case I consider it has been a great day on the board !

[stephen1946] 29/8/2016 19:18

Icsid rules state; precedents do not generally apply to any icsid hearings, this modus operandi was established when icsid was first set up, the tribunal must give a verdict based on its own findings, although certain details can be duplicated, this is due to the fact that in its infancy icsid obviously had no precedents, therefore early cases would be at a disadvantage.

Rule 45, 1. Failure of a party to appear shall not be deemed an admission of the other party's assertions.
2. If a party fails to appear at any stage of the proceedings, the other party may request the tribunal to render an award.

No precedents, thats that red herring out of the window.

Rule 45, section 2, quite straight forward, ROI walked away and chl asked the tribunal to render an award. What happened next imho, ROI were told by the tribunal that an award was to be made and it would be substantial or ROI could sit round the table and talk to CHL. Thats when roi returned to the fold, paid its share and began talks in earnest.

An amendment to rule 48 states; ICSID shall publish excerpts of the legal conclusions of the award, even without the consent of the parties. Roi prefer no publicity.

ROI are finished, and have been for some time, as somebody said earlier, "its a no brainer" CHL have won, it's just a case of, "how much?"

[bobic] 29/8/2016 18:30

EDF has been quite wonder why?
Time flies when comments good or bad keeps coming.This weekend we had non stop opinions from experts than any other weekends.Shows lots of interset,can not wait for tomorrow,no doubt EDF will return if share price is in negative territory,but i dont think so.Regards.....

[stephen1946] 29/8/2016 18:21

6 duplicated.

[stephen1946] 29/8/2016 18:21

6 years to get to where we are today, are you doubting thomas's for real?

If this forgery investigation, deliberation is anything to go by, then we can all forget about being around for the tribunals verdict. That, by this timescale is likely to be roughly 2030.

To suggest such is perfectly ridiculous, under such circumstances, another couple of tribunal member would by necessity have to be sworn in as members died.

Talks are quite certainly being held as we stand today.

[wulber] 29/8/2016 17:40

Also remember that CHL cannot move the goal posts, but a government and its law can!

[wulber] 29/8/2016 17:37

finally, litigation cases and the appeals that follow can yake years not months especially when we are talking company -v- state.

[wulber] 29/8/2016 17:34

Re the forgery issue, i for one am not 100% sure.Did CHL have sufficient time to examine the validity, signatures and stamps and if they thought they were bone fida, then both parties accepted in good faith.If the documents were amended after, then if CHL did not have a copy of the amended document for their lawyers to peruse then forgery it be!No this is not a forgone conclusion.Caveat emptor

[stephen1946] 29/8/2016 17:19

Is anybody aware just how long these "EXPERTS" have been "deliberating" the forgery issue?.

I am well aware of the difficulties that ICSID may have, gaining access to various documents and officials, but please, any self respecting grown-up investor would not expect this sort of basic investigation to take upwards of 10 months surely?

After all, its not Debbie that is carrying out the search, nor is Neo doing it, a "professional" outfit are doing this investigation, are'nt they?

I think CHL holders are being kept in the dark, and fed crumbs, whilst talks are taking place. Nothing else fits the ridiculous time scale of this investigation.

I would assume that the forgery aspect was looked into and maybe got sorted within 4 maybe 5 months, the time after that has been spent thrashing an OOC settlement.

Nothing else is possible in the time the "deliberations" have been happening. The deal is nearly done its purely a question of how much. It is fairyland nonsense to assume anything else.

[flyingc] 29/8/2016 16:06

carcosa (7530)

Great post - thank you. I can see those points may influence the authenticity decision as you say, although like you I tend to the view CHL will succeed (or I wouldn't have a pile of my hard earned invested here..)

I was thinking as well what happens if CHL prevail in this stage, ie do ROI have any cards left to play after that. My own feeling is "no", but we'll see soon enough.

Thanks for the other replies also - good to see some civil and well thought out posts before the judgement is received and the mad shouting herd arrive :-)

GLA - September on Thursday....

FC

[neo26] 29/8/2016 16:04

Some interesting trading days are about to commence....

[neo26] 29/8/2016 15:03

Pat VeraShe is very dangerous.. :)

[carlo sartori] 29/8/2016 14:29

I'm with you on this one neo26 (7532). How Noor failing to turn up because he might be embarrassed could possibly be construed as a positive for RoI is beyond me!

I do not propose that this case is a slam dunk or anything like it. I do think that that those who feel chl will win the case are able to set out very clear and detailed reasons to support their case while those who suggest that Churchill may lose the case seem to have difficulty setting out as clear reasoning..........and many merely scare-monger the negativities.

In the overall, this is a gamble, but personally I very much like the odds in what is effectively a 2-horse race. From the evidence that we know of, which is all in the public domain, I would be shocked if RoI win their case.....................it MIGHT happen, but I am comfortable to bet that it won't.

GLA.

Carlo.