*The onus is not on DL to get the court order. *It rests with the company to get the injunction order to prevent DL from removing the factory by force. * understand?
The director cheat shareholder and use public fund to built factory on his own company land in which the factory will belong to him secretly....This already is a fraud and how conflict of interest come in....
he purposely use public fund to built the thing on his land then make claim to public company that the thing was built wrong and want to claim for compensation...
But it is trepass and stated no suitable land whereby just the whole moutain in sub lease.
I guessing like those quarry need explosive too near rhe mine site it will crack the whole factory foundation. Or failing rock damage the factory while running ? These is just thinking and assumption
In construction no matter how difficult....U are not allow to built on other people land without permission....Therefore I dk how they pass the construction in the first....
Still trespass is trepass. With active peak mining wirh explosive near active peak it is not suitable. As like oil mill need to near intake water and flat land
BOD has not discharged their fiduciary duties satisfactorily. The 2022 AR (and the earlier ones) also fails to highlight the risk of the related party arrangement. High power lawyers should be able to nail DL.
Yeah maybe that time same owner just close one eye...From my experience in other counter...If a company want to develop the owner/director land...The company will purchase the land from owner/director only can start the development....
I agree too is subject to court. Borh side can hire good lawyer to debate on the case. I also ask some lawyer friends as you know nowasdays a lot lawyer in market. They said if prove merits and reasonable by any means for the benefits of the company they are serving their duty. Proving with prove. They are off the not guilty as it stated
Trespassing is a gone case, but the failure to discharge fiduciary duties satisfactorily by the CEO and BOD may be an easier angle by FL to attack, especially when such failure land Bahvest in trouble. I think "kuat kuat" penalty is likely.
LFM will most likely endure long litigation from Bahvest to recover all the losses. After the change of management most likely a full audit on the operation to recover all the gold that hide by LFM.
Who provokes whom is a separate matter. I am just saying that it is not a sure win tactic for DL, he may win a few trees but lose the whole forest. FL and gang can hire very powerful lawyers
I beg to differ. Don't forget DL is the controlling s/h of Southsea Gold S/B. After new management comes in, Bahvest will be suing DL and Southsea Gold, not FL and gang
DL can kill Bahvest, but he may be buried together with it with many small shareholders as collateral damage. As for FL and gang, they lose $ but it is small change for them. Better fold rather than sai lang all the way.
This book is the result of the author's many years of experience and observation throughout his 26 years in the stockbroking industry. It was written for general public to learn to invest based on facts and not on fantasies or hearsay....
Muyutin
372 posts
Posted by Muyutin > 2023-05-10 20:29 | Report Abuse
SISA MAS YANG JATUH LANTAI I PUNYA