Oxus Gold Share Discussion Threads

[marmar80] 10/1/2020 07:22

The justice was always on the right side, the richer side.BDO turned to be a cheap administrator, so the effect is as it is.

[ianpuddifoot] 10/1/2020 06:47

hxxps://www.bdo.co.uk/getmedia/d7b94ccd-3b54-49ac-9079-2ee0f698f43c/Oxus-Gold-Plc-Signed-Progress-Report-7-January-2020.PDF.aspx

[festario] 19/10/2019 12:46

Same here.... I got very greedy,and stupid.... but I did study the case, and I am convinced that right was on our side. A complete scam.

[currypasty] 24/9/2019 16:35

embarrassing loss here, not sure what I was playing at

[johncasey] 24/9/2019 16:32

great...nightmare over

[dave444] 24/9/2019 16:32

Yes we can claim the loss this year now

[fatfish] 24/9/2019 16:27

I see our shares have been deemed worthless, According to interactive invester.

[marmar80] 21/8/2019 10:37

Bit late idea but good effort Jack. Nice to see someone still fighting. Best of luck to you.

[jack1236] 21/8/2019 08:32

I sent a summary of events to the European Commission, they said they don't track individual cases of member countries, they can't look into the Paris Court of Appeal decision, but what they will do is pass the information on to the EC department that deals with the Uzbeks. That's a positive.

[colinhall] 01/8/2019 14:59

Law360 (July 31, 2019, 5:02 PM EDT) -- A D.C. federal judge ruled Tuesday that Uzbekistan has no sovereign immunity in litigation filed by a Guernsey-based arbitration funder to enforce a $13 million arbitral award, though he ordered further discussion on whether the Central Asian nation was properly served. Read more at: hxxps://www.law360.com/energy/articles/1183486/uzbekistan-can-t-get-suit-over-13m-arbitral-award-nixed?copied=1

[davius] 01/8/2019 14:45

Not that it makes any differece www.law360.com/energy/articles/1183486/uzbekistan-can-t-get-suit-over-13m-arbitral-award-nixed

[festario] 15/7/2019 15:20

Nope, not yet I'm afraid.It's torturous isn't it?

[spagboll] 15/7/2019 14:57

Presumably I can put these in my tax return and recover a bit, can anyone confirm?

[marmar80] 26/6/2019 11:12

Wonfer how much the ordinary international lawyers would ask for this case. Also 13m?

[am78] 26/6/2019 11:10

BDO FEES of over £300K .... another P 1 ss take!

[marmar80] 26/6/2019 10:51

So no win no fee and Gretton after losing the case will receive $13m+.

[marmar80] 26/6/2019 10:45

Following the dismissal of the appeal, we have considered the legal position and concluded that it would not be feasible for the Company to pursue any further appeals. The Joint Administrators have also consented to allow Gretton, as the sole secured creditor of Oxus, to seek and obtain in its own right enforcement of the existing award in the United States of America. On 27 July 2018, Gretton petitioned the US District Court for the District of Columbia to recognise, confirm and enforce the Final Award and enter a judgment in Gretton's favour against Uzbekistan for the Award Sum (which has been stated as USD 13,026,908.12 (including interest)) plus pre- and post-judgment interest.Uzbekistan resisted the petition, arguing that the US District Court had no jurisdiction, and raised other procedural arguments. Gretton has filed papers opposing Uzbekistan's arguments and is pursuing its rights in the proceedings.

[colinhall] 26/6/2019 09:09

Update available on the BDO website.

[noirua] 13/6/2019 00:46

Oxus Gold PLC - Companies House: Https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/04056219

[dgduncan] 07/6/2019 09:01

Just while you are checking this page - are you against the practice of shorting your shares by shorters selling them while not actually owning them ?. Share price should be based on supply and demand. If you agree, please sign the petition : hTTps://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/242399

[bungeetrader] 07/6/2019 08:54

I guess all of this depended on the size of the brown envelopes being passed about. Money talks.....

[sos100] 07/6/2019 08:44

Possibility of an appeal to the supreme court No mention of the significant dividend error in this appeal but struck out because of the use of some documents and dates of letters and no conflicts of interest!