Cloudbuy Forum

good move ronald confidence restored

smells real bad

Sorry, everybody, I didn't intend for this to appear twice... forgot that LSE copies to this board...

The previous was copied from a post by bloomberg2 on the advfn bb just now, presumably a reply to a query to RD.

Thank you for your email, you are not alone in your concerns. I want to state my overriding imperative, which is to protect cloudBuy and its shareholders. I had taken advice before entering into the transaction and looked at other companies where directors had also used the facility, from our research it had not been damaging. We have unfortunately been caught up in the Quindell storm along with a number of other companies. I have discussed the matter with Equities First's global managing director Jeff Smith who joined Equities First Holdings in 2008 from Goldman Sachs & Company where he was a Vice President in the Fixed Income Division from 2004 to 2008. He personally reassured me that; they have not applied any downward pressure on the stock they are a long term holder their trading in the stock since taking it over has been de minimis. My main concern is the damage to our company and wider shareholder base since we work for our shareholders and it is important that we are transparent and ethical. I have spent the last 5 years working very hard to build the company's reputation and deliver good returns to our shareholders. I believe we are at the beginning of our potential. Prior to entering into this transaction I visited the major private banks and it was very clear that they either did not wish to lend anything on a single line AIM stock portfolio or they would take a charge by way of share transfer of my entire holding and sell down at the first sign of trouble to cover their position in an uncontrolled manner, clearly this would be disastrous as they dumped stock into a descending market. Equities First have been operating for 12 years specialising in leading against small cap stocks. They have similar requirements to an institutional investor. They need a reasonable level of liquidity and a stock that they believe is at a reasonable value and can sustain the loan. My view having had extensive discussions with them as the situation has unfolded is that they are a professional company. Clearly I would not have entered into the agreement if I had thought that it was going to have the negative effect that has occurred; the reason that we chose to buy our new house and then sell was to ensure that we could remain in our existing house whilst the other was renovated, ensuring that we could focus on building the business at this critical time with the minimum of distraction. We normally work over 100 hours per week on the business, and keep our pay down so we needed the extra funds to ensure that we continued to have the time to focus on the business and keep the disruption to the minimum. I have discussed this matter extensively with other investors and the current consensus is that this is a short term issue, and that as we provide more contract wins and show how the large Hong Kong contract is progressing and generating revenues then this will go away. Our focus is now back on delivering the profitable revenues as quickly as we can. Regards Ronald Ronald Duncan

something smells bad here. As with most aim shares the major shareholder has problems offloading. This method looks cynical to me

yes get rid its all in the price imho

Up again .... nice

this is about to pop!!!!

50p by friday hopefully with more news from asia pacific