Conroy Gold & Natural Re... Share Discussion Threads

[thecynical1] 03/10/2017 18:45

Got it..... The Constantinians....

[thecynical1] 03/10/2017 17:32

On the masons questions..... Who knows...... But there is an odd Catholic organization in the picture..... Can't remember the name of it but it is the order of something something something.......

[kaos3] 03/10/2017 16:15

Any declared freemasons involved?

[kevjones2] 03/10/2017 16:07

Anyone want to discuss the sneaky dilution of your shares?

[kevjones2] 03/10/2017 16:06

I wonder just how many usernames the one poster is allowed on ADVFN. I know of one poster with at least two but now I'm thinking three.

I guess I'll just have a nip of some whiskey a go-go.

[thecynical1] 03/10/2017 15:59

Wow..... Would they not prefer to make a film out Of that? Could be a classic with the right cast....... : )

How much the court case have set O'Sullivan back? Could be quite ugly, I imagine.

How many people are going to the EGM?

[mise] 03/10/2017 14:28

Court .........Conclusion ....its pretty clear!!!!


XII. Conclusion
111. Mr O’Sullivan, having failed to comply with the particular notification requirements to which he was subject under Art.85 of Conroy Gold’s articles of association, comes now to court claiming: that there was “practical and substantive” compliance with those requirements on his part; and that the court, by giving business efficacy to the said articles of association, should deem that to be compliance enough. But there is no such thing as “practical and substantive” compliance when it comes to the applicable notification requirements: there is either compliance or there is not, and here there was not. As to giving business efficacy to the reading of articles of association, that is a task that arises for a court when there is some doubt as to the meaning or sense of the articles of association, literally construed. But here there is no such doubt presenting. The notification requirements are simple and clearly worded, there is good reason why they exist and fall to be satisfied, and they were not satisfied. A commercially sophisticated, legally advised shareholder, such as Mr O’Sullivan, who is attempting to place a number of directors on the board of a public company can reasonably and properly be taken to be familiar with the rules applicable to such attempt, be those rules prescribed in the relevant company’s articles of association and/or applicable statute. Regardless, there was no obligation on Conroy Gold to remind Mr O’Sullivan of the notification obligations incumbent upon him in order that he might discharge those obligations in a timely manner. For these reasons, and for the reasons stated elsewhere in the court’s judgment, the within application must fail. All of the reliefs sought by Mr O’Sullivan at this time are respectfully refused by the court.

[mise] 03/10/2017 14:05

People should read the full court ruling , its quite dismissive of the legal action
and is supportive of Prof Conroy acting correctly !!

But as we all know there are other agendas from other parties with historic grudges and others trying to take control by stealth...

[rbonnier] 03/10/2017 12:45

Looks like conroy is going to win on Friday share price going down to reflect this.

[kevjones2] 03/10/2017 12:37

Read the very last line of the segment of the Irish Times article below. Rather than take credit from a respected shareholder conroy decided to dilute shareholders even further just for the sake of reucing the percentage value of O'Sullivan's holding, and increasing his (conroy's) percentage. Nobody, absolutely nobody with even half a brain could not see that conroy is the agitator here who has absolutely zero interest in shareholders' investments (unless someone is actually related to or on the payroll of conroy).

"Patrick O’Sullivan, the single largest shareholder in the Irish exploration company, was commenting on news that the company had applied for 700,000 new shares to begin trading on Ireland’s stock exchange after raising €210,000 to advance its project in Clontibret, Co Monaghan.
Conveying his annoyance at the move, Mr O’Sullivan said: “The board is supposed to be acting in the interests of all shareholders. This board is acting in the interests of some shareholders. I don’t have the ability to issue 700,000 shares.”
Mr O’Sullivan said the move would dilute his shareholding in the company in advance of the egm.
A spokesman for Conroy declined to comment on Mr O’SullivanR17;s remarks.
Mr O’Sullivan said he had written to the company advising it he was prepared to make a credit line of €300,000 available to the company in the form of a loan note."

[craffert] 03/10/2017 11:12

I would add (d) has a financial interest which is primarily based on the P&L account rather than the Balance Sheet.

[thecynical1] 03/10/2017 10:47

Anyone who still supports Conroy is in my opinion.... A) delusional b) intellectually fairly limited c) downright stupid. AND OR ALL of THE ABOVE. All in my opinion of course.

NoW....how.long will it take for the red thumb? LOL!!!!!

[resourceful] 03/10/2017 08:18

it is wrecked anyway
no matter who wins
OS made a hames of it
The Prof is win at any cost...and what a cost
there will be massive dilution
just looked at the circular
look at the number of snouts in the trough

[craffert] 02/10/2017 22:21

Given the lunacy of his postings, Goldeneye5 has to be getting a cut of the Conroy gravy train. Incredible that anyone could see such decimation of value in his shares and still be a cheerleader for management with their snouts in the trough. Anything is better than Conroy at this stage. Whatever O'Sullivan's technical errors, at least he's doing this to try to increase equity value. And surely the first duty of management is to look after shareholders interests. Roll on the end of Con Roy.

[kevjones2] 02/10/2017 22:14

No. It was only 100,000 shares. Unless conroy has yet another sneaky move up his sleeve.

[rbonnier] 02/10/2017 21:30

So now that the rns correction is out and the 100k was a buy not a sell was that transaction enough to get the resolutions thrown out on Friday ?

[glenalmond] 02/10/2017 20:35

Goldeneye,

I'm sure you will have seen this link from mid-July but what exactly do you disagree with?



Are you not also tired of waiting, like the rest of us?

What says Mr Redthumb?

[goldeneye5] 02/10/2017 18:30

O Sullivan lost big in court and will have to cough up the costs. Clearly the judge was very unimpressed by him, reading the judgement, just like a previous judge in the odyssey cinema case in Belfast was unimpressed by him with a judgement some years ago. He made a shocking embarrassing error in his first attempt to get three new directors on the board. O Sullivan will loose again on Friday thankfully I suspect. O Sullivan will have 1. Damaged a company in which he himself owns a large amount of shares. 2. Delayed real progress which would have been made by now. 3. Wasted everyone's time and his own money. 4. Shown himself as not fit to be a director. 5. Soured his relationship with the company going forward. Perhaps he is best sell out, just like a lot of unhappy posters here and move on. Remember VOTE AGAINST All RESOLUTIONS. It's in shareholders best interests. Make sure Whiskey Man pulling the strings of his puppets gets his hands on nothing!