I am back. So is SGH, page-1556

"For one in relation to our UK presence I have said that 98% of our clients would recommend us"...........
.............
.............the use of "our" and "us" seems to suggest "you" and other SGH holders have some kind of ownership in the company. If (and it's a very big "if") you do, it is at best a token one because Anchorage as good as owns it and can do anything it wants with the company. Anchorage's plans won't include you (or "us" using your naïve terminology).

Ref: the CLAIMS as you call them, you fail to state that WTG utterly refutes them and has informed the UK market that the barrister's opinion took into account information provided by SGH that SGH has declined to show WTG. And still declines to do so even with only a short time left before it has to file the full claim. You also fail to say that it has been specifically stated that the barrister had no part to play in the spurious and imo desperate claim for $1bn against a company with a market capitalisation of only about 10% of the amount claimed.

You say: "I think we should get this forum back on track".

The above will only happen when people like you and sandwich stop posting. Sandwich has made a full swing from a declared "newbee" investor looking for guidance about what he gives the impression is his first investment, and with a relatively flowing style of writing, to a veteran of SGH having cashed in and made a lot at $8 per share, now to someone pretending to be Chinese with a poor command of written English. The similarities of your always ramping posts to those of Krispytecht over a long period until your arrival are uncanny.

I'm beginning to think that what you both post is a road of clap.

IMO SGH has all the hallmarks of a company that is soon to cause shareholders 100% loss of their investment. The hedge funds that effectively own it will probably do ok - even (most) employees and creditors. These are what are referred to as "stakeholders".

But that's just me.