Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Oxus Gold LSE:OXS London Ordinary Share GB0030632714 ORD 1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 3.125 - 0.00 00:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Mining 0.0 -1.9 -0.4 - 22

Oxus Gold Share Discussion Threads

Showing 34376 to 34399 of 34650 messages
Chat Pages: 1386  1385  1384  1383  1382  1381  1380  1379  1378  1377  1376  1375  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
29/3/2019
18:38
The Original claim: Aug 31, 2011 OXUS GOLD v UZBEK GOVERNMENT (Arbitration) Http://www.investegate.co.uk/Article.aspx?id=201108311131323270N Oxus commences Arbitration proceedings against the Uzbek Government "The arbitration requests that damages be awarded in favour of the Company in an amount to be proven and quantified in the proceedings and currently estimated as no less than US$400 million." (NO LESS THAN $400M)
lithological heterogeneities
29/3/2019
13:23
You can't really have 100% written it off Fest, otherwise, why would you still be here? I had written it off a couple of years ago but there's always that twinkle of a possibility that won't allow me to be all pessimistic. I do like to believe.
shinyleather
29/3/2019
11:58
Well you can't lose what you have already lost. This is a win or break even game now, so speculating can't do any harm imho.
skidaddle
29/3/2019
11:32
Stop it guys, write it off, I have.
festario
29/3/2019
11:11
come on with interest we should be looking at a £600m pay out...if there is any justice and Lamm struck off
johncasey
29/3/2019
10:46
6p + allows me to semi retire. Fingers crossed !
am78
29/3/2019
10:29
Marmar, yep 3p would be a win for me too, anything above that? Well.
shinyleather
29/3/2019
10:15
Tbh lads- all I want is to get a chance to sell my entire holding for 3p..
marmar80
29/3/2019
10:04
Well, I meant Shead himself.
festario
29/3/2019
09:59
Is is ok to leave the name of my next of kin and a po box number ?
ronconomics
29/3/2019
00:27
festario There is no BOD.
mikemike16
28/3/2019
22:54
Richard Wilkins has certainly been active both on here and by organising a meeting in London for interested shareholders shortly after the original arbitration result which I and several other shareholders attended.I don't have any issues with any of the directors, including Richard Shead whom I've never met or even spoken to. They are victims of the destruction of Oxus and subsequent ridiculous arbitration case even more than us.
zaphod99
28/3/2019
20:37
hTTps://www.ibanet.org/Document/Default.aspx?DocumentUid=B799DCF5-989E-4E4B-8CB9-06F385C8CCF9
jack1236
28/3/2019
19:52
Zaphod, I kind of knew there'd be no RNS's, due to having no Nomad. But I had the lingering hope that that board might make some kind of effort to communicate with the shareholders, many of whom had supported the company during its need for funding many years ago.
festario
28/3/2019
19:21
Indeed. Highly suspicious.Just looks like another instance of the tribunal (well Stern and Tercier at least) acting in the interests of Carolyn Lamm as they appeared to do with every single decision that was made throughout the process.I suspect that Lamm, Stern and Tercier were banking, if not praying, that it would never make it to an appeal to be exposed in a court that is hopefully a lot less rotten than the UNCITRAL Court of Arbitration.
zaphod99
28/3/2019
18:59
sections 74-82 of the official report..Uzbeks change legal counsel, Oxus lawyers keep repeating the obvious conflicts of interest and on point 82 it's simply dismissed and just brushed under the carpet with no reasonings or explanations given...
sos100
28/3/2019
18:45
The company has been delisted and is in administration so there will be no more RNS's any updates will be communicated by BDO in their official role as administrator but I suspect you knew that.
zaphod99
28/3/2019
18:38
Let's hope the Paris court has the power to investigate what appear to have been blatant conflicts of interest surrounding Carolyn Lamm.Removal of Lamm and White & Case from the case would be a hugely significant event.Let's not forget that before they became involved we were on the verge of a settlement between Oxus and the Uzbek regime.
zaphod99
28/3/2019
18:28
Nick, that's a superb short summary.In my opinion, the powers that be in this world have conspired to ensure that we get nothing from this.If we are lucky enough, or if justice is strong enough, to set the last verdict aside, then I believe that the entire slow moving arbitration process will begin again.I expect that many shareholders will have died in the time it takes to unravel this debacle.What puzzles me is why the BOD of OXS have issued no statement or no RNS to at least point out to long suffering shareholders that a new stage in the process has been reached.Shead and his buddies have utter contempt for ordinary shareholders.
festario
28/3/2019
17:59
Just adding to maytrees post on quantum decisions. Unfortunately, I don't think the French courts have the power to do this. I've seen no precedents and BDO haven't stated as such in any report. There again, there isn't any source I've seen that defines what the French courts can and can't do. So, in all probability, the likely best case scenario is a set-aside decision and the Uzbeks settle or, second best, a set-aside and another arbitration. One of the advantages Oxus has is that the Uzbeks will be aware that a further arbitration can be funded.
nick2412
28/3/2019
14:51
Thanks Nick, interesting to see what happens.
shinyleather
28/3/2019
13:43
Not checked in for a while but thought I'd say thanks for all information that's been posted. Forever hopeful! Cheers
markdods1
28/3/2019
13:38
So, it looks like the Tribunal were saying there was only expropriation if the adverse effects on AGF's finances were sufficient. They used false information to say it didn't meet this test. On any rational / logical / fairness grounds, this has to be set aside. Establishing a precedent that a Tribunal can make up stuff to justify a decision must be something that cannot stand? Against public policy? Procedural violation? Let's hope so. Oxus do have the best lawyers. Shinyleather, anyone would be guessing on a figure. My complete guess, if set aside, loosely based on on AGF's value and a substantive haircut would be $100m to $300m including costs and interests. Based on calculations and assesment of legal funding agreement in previous post. $70m = 3p $100m 5.2p. $150 8.9p. $200 12.6p
nick2412
28/3/2019
13:28
The arbitrators evidenced their 'no expropriation' finding based on AGF being so profitable that it allowed a 65.7m USD dividend to shareholders. Factually incorrect and the dividend was nothing to do with AGF or even Uzbekistan. This alone surely requires a 'set aside' decision:- 749. None of the events prior to 2007 reach, either separately or collectively, the threshold of depriving Claimant of its investment. The fact that the State actions taken in 2006, including the Complex Audit 2006 and the change in the VAT regime, may have had adverse effects on AGF’s operations and profit is per se not sufficient to constitute an “expropriation”. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that Claimant paid out in 2007 a dividend of US$ 65.7 million to its shareholders as a result of its operations in Uzbekistan (see above para. 555).
nick2412
Chat Pages: 1386  1385  1384  1383  1382  1381  1380  1379  1378  1377  1376  1375  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
OXS
Oxus Gold
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20201126 10:45:01