CGB (ASX) pnina feldman

Originally posted by sounda ↑

I am not able to give a legal argument as I do not possess enough information. Unless one had access to detailed information (times and dates etc.) then it would be irresponsible to formulate a legal opinion. The only thing shareholders have (of which I am not) is that which is available in the public domain.
However, I had some concerns re the loan to Volcan. It could be that I have missed some information but to date I have seen nothing that shows shareholders that (prior to it being written off which apparently it has) there was a commercial return on those funds. I.e. was it a commercial transaction for benefit of the owners of those funds - QBL shareholders?
That is a legitimate question to ask. It is not, in any way whatsoever, defamatory. It's like going into McDonalds and asking what is in that burger that you are selling to me please? Don't you defame our burgers!!
Do you suppose that asking a precise question at the AGM could be considered defamatory? Questions often cause discomfort to those to whom they a
re directed at - that's not the . to raise an action under the defamation laws.
Interestingly, and in general, the defamation laws have, on many occasions, been used as a threat to silence those who dare to ask questions of those with the deeper pockets. The courts are very aware of these kinds of "silencing" actions and cast significant scrutiny upon the actions bought by those whose motives might be to silence critics.
And lastly, the last time I looked the HC fighting fund would cover about 4 hours of legal costs.
Take care here punters!
Pleadings from those who implore you to, "support the company" etc. will not save your capital from disappearing!
And as for posts being moderated on the basis of "unsubstantiated information" - well I think that it is impossible for all opinions not to be considered unsubstantiated. The only things that are substantiated are those items that directly refer to published information.
Au revoir QBL ers.

Expand

Many thanks, and I don't need to say any more, but your point of view is well executed, We can only post what is factual and thus form an opinion, anything else is here-say , which is still libel under the constitutional act. Happy CATS made a statement , but got caught with his pants down , but respect his ferocity towards human man kind, but some things are best kept in the deck of cards, before you show yr hand without retribution..
Many thanks fr yr input , some bias but no mudslinging

Many thanks fr yr awareness.