raygun
No one including you even knew about the this until I pointed it out,
View attachment 6416625and I pointed it out because I said it would get messy for secured creditor before I posted the va disclosure
and I thought said I found it was an interesting declaration by va in court filed documents given the company announcements regarding the granting of full security over all of the real assets of nuh Ltd
Now prior to that you talked about the cn
And security
and just resently said as rt has no security whatsoever and therefore no claim over nuh ip
I merely stating that
it does as per company annoucments
Have security ,
Va declaration was interesting
and that nuh ip is a real asset of nuh which according to the companies own announcements would be part of the full security granted to rt by nuh over all of its real assets
here is the company announcement and if you check the company meetings I think you will find the motion to grant security was carried and hence why I highlighted the point which your now running with and declaring rt will just have to resolve and get on with it- you are making a huge assumption
View attachment 6416589View attachment 6416586So resolving the cn is most definitely a priority but just because va marked no doesn’t mean security is already resolved and that rt is simply an unsecured creditor as you suggest - or that it can’t get to nuh ip- it may have just been marked no because the Va believes rt as at that date had no security enforcement rights- time will tell
Why the disclosure by Va is completely different to the companies announcements regarding security and cn will be disclosed no doubt in due course- but you carrying on like it can now easily be resolved because they had a creditors meeting and rt is therefore unsecured is wrong—- you should read what the purpose of the first meeting is all about
(20min delay)