Paragon Diamond Share Discussion Threads

[club sandwich] 23/8/2017 07:39

Fest - well it's usual for the losing party to pay both side's costs in a court case - that's why they're so risky and damned expensive. Sometimes the court awards party costs where each side pays their own costs...

dig - Vince really isn't very bright, plus at the moment he is totally panicking: he knows deep down that Manduca won't deliver (he's known it for a while, but hasn't had the balls to act on the knowledge), and he also now knows that he can't join the CA, so he can see his £122k vanishing before his very eyes.

He really should be MUCH more careful about the emails he sends; especially ones containing highly defamatory statements about me which he - wrongly - presumably doesn't think will make their way to me. He doesn't seem to know the LNHs are leaking like a sieve now that there is a realistic chance they *may* be able to recover some monies (much more of a chance than waiting for Slippery Phil to deliver, anyway), and that we know almost everything going on in their group while they know NOTHING about what we're up to beyond what we share on here. Like I said, not very bright.

Did I mention that I have a conference call with lawyers at one o'clock today?

[festario] 23/8/2017 00:57

... and don't forget, all pertinent costs 'could' be recovered from the defendants in any successful case, and why shouldn't they?

[festario] 22/8/2017 23:49

... one of those 'costs' being SuperG's fee as a consultant.... whether he wants it or not!This stuff is worth a FORTUNE.

[club sandwich] 22/8/2017 17:40

If that's true then it's game over: they settle for 100% of losses out of court or we *take* it to court, prove their utter incompetence and get 100% of losses PLUS punitive damages AND they have to pay costs.And then, once we have a war chest, we move on to the main event...

[club sandwich] 22/8/2017 16:09

"Nomads had it so good and became highly complacent."

yes, that's my take on it as well...

"I won't post the wording but it appears they thought ITGT was TIGT and Titanium Capital is Titanium capital investments ltd which isn't the case."

oh dear oh dear oh dear. Still, I'm sure they did great DD - but on the wrong entities!

[club sandwich] 22/8/2017 09:13

Yet more s'holders who think they were defrauded coming forward to join the class action.

If you haven't yet, get in touch:

[e-mail]
and/or
[e-mail]

almost everyone is welcome...

[club sandwich] 21/8/2017 17:47

It's funny how things are starting to disappear from the web, and how Manduca changed his LinkedIn profile.

Almost like he knows we're coming for him and is covering his tracks. Sadly - for him - it's far too late for that. I've spent nearly two years screengrabbing everything I can, and it's all in a Dropbox folder shared with the lawyers.

But Northland first...

[superg1] 21/8/2017 17:38

It all comes down to what it says in the Lesotho mining policy.

Lesotho will not sign over licences unless those requesting them have the mining experience and sufficient funding to operate a mine.

15 million was never going to be enough and it proved to be the case as per the Lesotho article about the attempt to deceive them with a ficticious lender.

It should all come out in the wash.

[festario] 21/8/2017 13:04

The whole £53m was 3 different figments of Manduca's imagination. As is the £100m plus, he has been dangling in front of the loan note holders for best part of a year.It's cynical and pathetic on many levels.We've never mentioned Simon Retter as being complicit in this fraud before, but of course given his replies to investors queries and dismissive attitude to shareholders in general, he must have been privy to all of Manduca's dirty tricks.

[club sandwich] 21/8/2017 12:57

The company was suspended on 16th November 2015, and Northland resigned on the 24th November, just over a week later.

My best guess - and I should stress this is just my opinion, I have no proof to back it up (yet) - is that the company's financial situation changed prior to suspension, Northland advised Manduca he had to release an RNS to that effect, he refused (related to his spreadbet positions, perhaps?) and instead went for suspension, and then Northland resigned. Or alternatively Northland became aware that the 'funding' that had been announced was fictional. Something like that...

As you say, if the notes they were required to keep don't exist Northland don't have a hope of defending an action; if they *do* exist then we get to cross-ref them with everything else we know and see what, if any, DD they did - what they knew and what they *should* have known...

Just a reminder: this is ShareProphets in December 2015:

"This, remember, is the company which spent about £2 million on a share buy-back about a year ago, and has announced three big funding packages through 2015 totalling $53 million. Yet not a penny of that funding seems to have materialised, and now the company has no cash, has seen the potential seller of a diamond project walk away, has no Nomad and in a few days it will have no listing either."

hxxps://www.shareprophets.com/views/17514/paragon-diamonds-wishes-its-shareholders-a-merry-christmas-by-announcing-it-is-to-be-booted-off-the-casino

"Yet not a penny of that funding seems to have materialised"

If Northland were carrying out their duty to continually monitor the companies for which they are Nomad, did they realise this fact - and if they did, what did they do about it?

Once again: how does a company that raised $53m (as per that share price article) in a year get suspended pending a financial clarification which never arrives? And how do you square what Retter said in that Lesotho Times article (which seems to have disappeared, so it's just as well I screen-grabbed the whole thing) about difficulty raising money in 2015 with what s'holders were told in those 3 RNSs?

The whole thing stinks...

[club sandwich] 20/8/2017 21:00

So they should still have all such records of discussions with Manduca and other Paragon officers. If those records exist they should make very very interesting reading indeed, when correlated with the great deal of other information we have...

[superg1] 20/8/2017 20:26

Nice reading that, now it's case of going onto step two, all that news.

[superg1] 20/8/2017 20:24

Where a nominated adviser is expected to consider or satisfy itself of a particular matter, this is expected to be after due and careful enquiry and exercising due skill and care. The nominated adviser should keep an appropriate record to evidence this.

Liaison with the Exchange
A nominated adviser must provide the Exchange with any information, in such form and within such time limits as the Exchange may reasonably require. A nominated adviser should reasonably satisfy itself that all such information provided by it is correct, complete and not misleading

All communications between the Exchange and a nominated adviser are confidential to the Exchange and should not be disclosed, except as required by any other regulatory or statutory body.

Maintenance of appropriate records

A nominated adviser must retain sufficient records to maintain an audit trail of the key discussions it holds with, advice which it has given to, and the key decisions it has made in respect of, the AIM companies for which it acts as nominated adviser. A nominated adviser should ensure that it is able (including by keeping appropriate records) to demonstrate the basis for advice given and key decisions taken, such as internal considerations and any actions taken prior to the advice being given. Such records must be retained whilst a firm is nominated adviser to a company and for at least three years after it ceases to be nominated adviser.

[superg1] 20/8/2017 20:14

Step 1 which I've just been looking up.

First determine if there is anything the Nomad is obliged to do or determined they are obliged to do.

I add 'determined' having just seen a useful line in the Aim regs on Nomads.

So as you will see below if the RNS has been reviewed to comply with the regs (EG not misleading) then a name of a Nomad will appear on the relevant RNS. That in short suggests the Nomad considered it needed a review and did so, which in short means they are endorsing such news as accurate and not misleading.

REVIEW OF NOTIFICATIONS
OR2 – The nominated adviser should undertake a prior review of relevant notifications made by an AIM company with a view to ensuring compliance with the AIM Rules for Companies

In meeting this, the nominated adviser should usually:
― review in advance (although without prejudice to the requirement of Rule 10 to release
information without delay) all notifications to be made by an AIM company for which it acts to ensure as far as reasonably possible that they comply with the AIM Rules for Companies. Where the nominated adviser reasonably believes a company’s directors have appropriate knowledge and experience of the AIM Rules for Companies, review of routine announcements (e.g. pursuant to rule 17) may not be necessary include the nominated adviser’s name and a contact name on all such announcements that a nominated adviser reviews, other than routine announcements.

[montyhedge] 20/8/2017 19:28

Good luck boys.

[club sandwich] 20/8/2017 15:18

Super - many thanks for all you help in this. If it comes to a successful conclusion I'm sure I'm not the only s'holder who would be happy to stand you a night in the pub and a curry for all your efforts.

[club sandwich] 20/8/2017 11:44

"I don't want to say what that is to give the clowns on the other side the heads up. They eon't be anle to guess."

but do be sure and send it to the lawyers, won't you?

[club sandwich] 20/8/2017 08:52

Fest - just filter him, please - we have far more important things to focus on.