Oxus Gold Share Discussion Threads

[loverat] 06/10/2015 09:31

wilfy75

He has been pulled up on the nonsense about 'punitive damages' many times. I have mentioned it at least three times.

He is either naive or is simply trying mislead other posters. I think the latter so not much point engaging with him. Just best to correct when he posts something particularly misleading.

[the stigologist] 06/10/2015 09:31

wilfly you have been exposed before for talking rubbish

The Stigologist - 03 Mar 2015 - 13:41:27 - 17048 of 24831

wilfly well done for exposing yourself

Note : today he totally discounts 'punitive damages' but prior to selling he claimed 'punitive damages/moral damages' were possible :-


wilfy75
11 Feb'15 - 17:23 - 14889 of 14899 2 0

So at risk of being attacked for not having done this research earlier (for the sake of clarity, this element falls into the category of the "cherry on top" as my analysis on the main claims justifies, in my view, my investment and in my further defence I haven't seen a discussion on this point before), I have been looking into the question of item (c) of the claim:

"awarding moral damages in favor of Claimant for physical threats and the illegal detention of personnel of Claimant and/or its Subsidiaries"

Initially I had thought this would be nonsense but researching it I find in Investment Treaty News (here: hxxp://www.iisd.org/itn/2011/07/12/awards-and-decisions-4/ ) a discussion of the ability of an UNCITRAL arbitration panel to consider "moral damages".

[tburns] 06/10/2015 09:28

Oh hello..

[jungmana] 06/10/2015 09:26

Am going to predict RAB out today and 5p+Good luck all

[wilfy75] 06/10/2015 09:26

Stig - what's your basis for punitive damages? Have you researched the point? I have and unless there is a provision in the BIT entitling a claimant to these (there isn't in ours, it is an incredibly unusual clause) then there's no basis for paying.

Remember that the reason for the existence of the ability to seek BIT arbitration is to compensate the party which has suffered a loss, not punish the state in question (no matter how appealing that might sound!). You might be interested to review the link below:

[maytrees] 06/10/2015 09:21

Good morning

Looks like a couple of large sells earlier - not I - but perhaps RAB now out?

[tburns] 06/10/2015 09:21

£1 a share would be beyond phenominal Stig, I think most on here would take 50p and have this sorted for Christmas. This would still be an amazing return and life changing for a number of peeps.

[hairballradical] 06/10/2015 09:21

Stig,

for once I agree with you!

I hate finding myself 'siding on the air of caution', 'risking it for a biscuit' but am always relieved to find that I walk away with 'two feet and a heartbeat'!

Think this contributor has been watching too much daytime tele.

HBR

[shinyleather] 06/10/2015 09:19

I do believe the correct phrase is to 'err on the side of caution'. As with a lot of things on BB's it has the appearance of being correct but isn't.

[the stigologist] 06/10/2015 09:15

As others have pointed out before this isn't a zero sum game with one winner and one loser. Uzbeks will get a 'goldmine' for paying out $1bn
That is why there needs to be a 'punitive' damages element otherwise they will think they can just get away with this sort of behaviour.

I hope the Tribunal will award us $1-2bn i.e. 100-200p per share

[fatmattress] 06/10/2015 09:12

I think you will all do very well with this.

[the stigologist] 06/10/2015 09:11

2.8p to 4.4p in the face of huge selling by RAB

how far will it go once the overhang clears ?

[the stigologist] 06/10/2015 09:00

as i said before people who post on the Lunatic Asylum are seriously thick retail mug punters

"i know we all side on the air of caution" !

FFS

[edgein] 06/10/2015 08:40

GS,

That's certainly one scenario. RS sees us as getting fair value for blatantly misappropriated assets, some may even see those as world class assets. He's already set out multiple times as to what OXS see as min and max claim amounts as fair value for these assets. Lets see if we do see justice and RS' fair compensation for long suffering shareholders in the very near term. Exciting times when the cap is only £24m and these assets are clearly worth multiples of that. Will RS have his confidence affirmed?

Regards,
Ed.

[marmar80] 06/10/2015 08:35

We only moved up from 3 to 4p. I saw moves from 3-5p to 50-80p within few days or weeks (bao, bam, solg). A lot of good things can happen to Oxs.

[giant steps] 06/10/2015 08:30

I wonder if the early sellers or those now sidelined looking for a cheaper
re-entry will be indefinitely out of the game in the very near future.

Charts have little meaning for the final outcome imo.
(it is for this reason the header has the current price only for reference)

[blueblood] 06/10/2015 08:11

Any change to CLN terms would need RNS and after results statement unlikely now.

[giant steps] 06/10/2015 07:42

marmar80 6 Oct'15 - 03:03 - 24810 of 24812

I believe in all CLNs conversion at full price of 12p within days, max few weeks




In reply to #24810:

Yes it is possible, but probably requires

a) verdict (merits and quantum)
b) quantum less costs
c) market to hold prices substantially above 12p but at a discount to (b)

I still wonder if RAB have agreed a new strike price on their CLNs

[the stigologist] 06/10/2015 07:29

Awaiting Merits and Quantum



* Oxus Gold vs Republic of Uzbekistan for alleged expropriation of assets

* Legal funding Calunius on No Win No Fee basis

* Arbitration started 31 August 2011

* May 2014 arbitration hearing completed (see RNS 19 May 2014)
* Claim Range $489m to $1250m (Nov 2012)

[giant steps] 06/10/2015 07:20

The very near future
... is 6 days in


On this basis news beckons

[marmar80] 06/10/2015 03:03

I believe in all CLNs conversion at full price of 12p within days, max few weeks

[the stigologist] 05/10/2015 20:51

Yes I fully expect 250% without news.

[giant steps] 05/10/2015 18:46

The Stig, guess i was thinking about the 250% potential on this re-rate !