Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Try this:
Smartwin got caught with there tail between their legs, cut and ran.
Yep.
Whats even more laughable is how at the end of the paper trail of emails, all Smartwin is waiting for in order to fund the balance is proof that Empire/GLSM could fund the overages.
Which leaves this glaring question:
Whose funding who?
Or, better yet...
the plug was pulled because the respective boards of the firms that funded Smartwin found out that SmartWin was violating their own covenant to invest only in company's with known oil reserves.
LOL,
How's this arguement:
Just as Judge Oing pointed to, Smartwin second guessed their promise to pay knowing its not such a good deal because oil and their share value (at the time) was loosing unprecedented value every minute.
No bargain?
Really now, Imagine that?
MRT gets 25,000, probably puts the amount in the general fund as authorities typically do and buys a new truck. Or, some uniforms.
Or, even maybe some binoculars to check out and see what the eagles do.
You know, stuff like that...
And what does Empire get?
Well, nothing except for zip, nada and shine-ola.
And what is that you say about MRT holding the 25k because of the appeal?
That's a bunch of non-scence. Or, is it sence?
Or, could it be?
In fact, your statement doesn't even make any cents at all.
Yep, I think it's no cents.
But, what a bargain, eh?
Right, but WRONG.
Common law provides for the exchange of goods and services for consideration (in equity).
In other words, when no bad faith is found (another story) and when all the attorney's finish all their presentations, arguments or what-have-you, a trier of fact (the judge(s)) will boil it down (in the aforementioned cases) as to whether any benefit for the bargain was attained.
As such, MRT cashed the $25,000 check but refused the renewal and SmartWin, received 5 million in collateral but only provided 3.9 million in return.
Bottom line: A gross inequality, imo.
if they want to get clever and bring up the rental payment "contract"
Mmm,
I guess all that poster, posted MRT information has truly come full circle.
Ahh, yes...the ride between rhyme and reality really ends at credibility.
Clips has my vote!
Very true.
Clips has my vote.
Nonsense?
Lol, Not so. As Clips points to, any expiry could be attributable to SmartWins breach.
Thus putting a bite into that 3 billion.
Ever notice how Genesis nor New Times never recovered?
LOL, maybe they should settle and move on.
Geez
It's the same.
SmartWin was formed by a JV between Genesis & New Times Holdings.
Both publicly traded shares in the Hong Kong market.
What?
I'm not getting it.
Didn't it used to be 48% of GSLM for funding the litigation?
And if so, why is it all of a sudden 25%?
Where is the consideration?
Early repayment?
Mmm, Very interesting. Sounds like a cat in the bag. As I always felt it was.
Is it true that TXO is now taking only 25 percent interest of GSLM for funding that litigation.
Because I'm not quite getting that. Maybe I should read it again, but I'm too busy. Perhaps that's what the most recent pr is stating that there is going to be some consideration for repayment other than what I thought previously was only a 48 percent share??? of the company.
Geez, let me know please.
Thanks
Wrong.
What is out of order is the refusal of the licence by the Minister if the application fees had been converted.
What typically occurs in the functions of awarding authorties is that all process and deliberations take place (based upon the facts presented) before any fees are accessed.
Plain & Simple
Yep, I agree.
As noted by the recent appeal adjournment agreed to by the MRT, evidently the gobs of goodwill is apparent now w/ TOG's assistance that was overlooked while we were in the dire straights caused by Smartwin.
Lol.
What do you think?
Maybe the appellate judge will simply convert back to EEGC the new truck that MRT converted with the application fees they received.
And then, of course, that means they'll have to sell it first, which could take a while (and probably at a loss)
Or, then he could have MRT make up the difference including interest on the funds received, etc.... Or, keep the truck, sell just the wheels, pay the company the balance in cash, a check?
Who knows?
WOW Pitts, surely that judge could do a number of things...
Including, foremost and reasonably by providing for the appellants request?
Right?
Looks lke there might be some juicy news coming out soon:
https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=pxrBpKvNlxjD3/iTvw2xuw==&system=prod
The fun has begun!
Drivel this:
Like I've been saying for the last two years.
Because of SmartWins failure to notify GSLM (a recurring event) pursuant to the notification clause of 52(b) which states:
"Smart Win must notify GSLM in writing by no later than 5p.m. (Hong Kong Time) on the Option Date which option Smart Win exercises.
If Smart Win does not exercise any option, then clause 5.2(c) applies."
Don't know and can't tell cause you're all over the place. Keep reading
Wrong, wrong. It's not in the 8k. Nice distraction but not contractural.
Kinda close, keep reading.
What a joke.
The only recognised contract in existence is the documented exploration licence contract signed by both parties (GSLM and the Minister) which GSLM breached by not carrying out the work program it undertook to do. That breach pre-dated the quasi-contract of the invoice and provisional rental payment anyhow so that the sleazy estoppel attempted heist has arrived too late on the scene when all the ducks are properly lined up.
Very astute BG, I agree. To allow the minister to refuse the application would allow him to be in breach of that contract. Therefore, he should be estopped.
Whats your opinion as to whether the court will grant a three year extension as applied for or solely the 1 year extension as paid for?
SMARTWin, their associates and
paid agents
Mmmm, approaching winter here in lalaland I guess means approaching spring in tazzieland?
Black Gold, being EEGC's liquidation is directly related to Smartwin's breach, what's your opinion on as to whether filing a stay in some form is appropriate?
Also, I can't remember but didn't the company file an appeal on the liquidation order?
Thanks.
Oh and one other thing, lol.
Note the word FAILED
Lol, corporate assets are non-disclosable by law in the state of Delaware. So, there is no way to prove it is or is not a lie (lol, again)...as you state. However, maybe this helps. You state this:
There is NO evidence that "Coleridge Resources" actually had ANY coal rights at all, no evidence they have ever produced one gram of coal, and I challenge you to show one shred of proof that Coleridge exists beyond the PRs issued by TXO and Alpha (and their enablers/accomplices).
the “Tenement” the perpetual lease comprising the rights to mining and extraction of coal under 119 DeGroot Patents in the Hazard Coal District of Kentucky, USA;
I'm also willing to bet that the 22k for the lease rental is allready spent.
Geez, knowing the manner in which awarding authorities spend/overspend it probably went into the general account and was spent that very same day.
Have to agree with you there BG. As you well know, the practice and procedures of government authorities are based upon/handed down from bills or acts from the legislature and supported or tested pursuant to case law.
I couldn't find anywhere in the MR Act of 1995 where it speaks of rental monies received as to not being related to some sort of contract.
In fact the entire Act speaks of the intent to contract w/ explorers to facilitate discoveries because of prior concerns by explorers over title of their prospective or discovered resources on Queen land. It's kinda like the Magna Carta where the lords got tired of fighting wars w/o title.
I'm willing to bet that in the less than 20 years since the Act was mandated the issue of contract consideration for acceptance of a rental fee has never been litigated. Therefore, in my opinion, MRT's interpretation of the Act is ripe for piercing.
Good work.
Hey BG, you wanna talk about performance of a contract?
Ok. So lets see:
As contracted, Dora the explorer spends 64 million in duly noted expenditures over the course of years w/o contention as the specific part of her performance in order that both parties may be equitably enriched.
Then, without consideration MRT says: Go away, I don't need you anymore because you're not performing hard enough.
But, Dora doesn't give up...
And Golly, the albatross flies in and equity flows as a raging current that mandates fair consideration and guess what...?
NEMO is going to save the day!
Does anybody remember that the MRT required the public float from the company in order to raise funds?
As such, they should have been keenly aware that market conditions and other economic factors are crucial in the ability to raise funds in order to perform accordingly. IMO, MRT was aware that the Smartwin issue affected the company's marketability and therefore it's ability to raise funds which the company was diligently trying to pursue/remedy.
However, all that was required of the lease in question was that a certain amount was expended. Remember, drilling was not required.
I see MRT has a major problem because apparently, the required amount (and therefore, the required performance) was expensed.
What was MRT expecting? Drilling?
Mmmm? Imo, maybe they were expecting too much?
Especially, considering they mandated the source of all/any such drill funds.
Seems to me they want to have their hands in the pie w/o recognizing what goes into making it.
Ok.
Care to share what you believe might be the company's prospective ground (s) to appeal the MRT's decision sans the notion MRT received the 22k in consideration? (ie: MRT overlooked known facts, new evidence, etc.)
BG, just for my understanding, are you taking the position that because MRT accepted the 22k as rental fee that the company is actually entitled to rent or lease the lease?
Thanks
Mmm, sounds kinda fishy.
Wouldn't be suprised if they eventually do drill though...
considering all the interest and Malcolm's apparent desire and ability to overcome such...
But trully, November?
Except for a few, you may not want to put alot of credence on things that are said on this board.
I doubt very much we will be drilling next month.
Not gonna happen.
Very much agree with you on both matters.
Half baked presumptions turned to libelous accusations w/o merit is all they are.
Point is MRT gave a reason for not granting the renewed lease of not performing on time yet they certainly were privy to the breach and subsequent economic and liquidation damages attributed to Smartwin
Right. It's all spurious nonsence for you.
Maybe you should try to visualize the factual damages and resulting economic delays caused by SmartWin.
It might help a little...
Wow, things are looking up for the company:
All the debt written off, funding for the Smartwin matter, 45% of TOG, fresh / apparent funding for TOG in the works, a slew of attorney's on the lease and the best part being an apparent end to the fluffy PR's...
Nice polar shift.
Mmm, I wonder what all of the above apparent fuss is about?
Yep, kinda feels like that way, huh?
Rumor has it SmartWin has assets in New York