Ann: Legal Update on Singapore High Court Action, page-92

lol.. this is spectacularly hilarious..

so your basis for the claiming the singapore laws are ineffective and it takes years to bankrupt someone in singapore is not based on anything to do with the singapore jurisdiction, not based on any facts what so ever.. but its based on 2 criminals from australian history 35 years ago and a current US president.

skase was never bankrupted GO, he was a criminal that spent one day in jail here, managed to get bail and his passport and fled australia, with the millions he stole from the companies he directed. it never ended in tears for skases, he lived a successful recluse in spain and spain never cooperated and he had a great life as an criminal living in majorca, where a few of my good friends live also.. love that place.. i also had a good friend in brisbane lose all his superannuation to that crim...

bond, as a criminal, and a fraudster, was easily bankrupted, the only issue i recall on the bankruptcy process was the famous car chase through perth, where he evaded a process server, then went to a police station to report the process server, the service i recall was disallowed by the court a few day later on appeal by bond, on a technicality, then he was served the same bankruptcy papers as he left that hearing, so its delay was only days as i recall, but bankrupted immediately he was, there is no doubt on that, no delays either. did that end in tears? cant recall tears, there was a broad re write of corporate law and liquidation provisions as i recall, the use of multi layered trusts made it impossible for the liquidators to recoup the stolen millions. so we had many revisions and corrections to corporate law to prevent more bond moments.

as for the jail of bond, twice, the second was for that art fraud..

i cant racall trump being bankrupted in australia or singapore,? are you sure Singapore falls in those jurisdictions? i thought is was an independent country with its own jurisdiction and laws?? when you say bankruptcy in the US you know its a term applied to companies and individuals, and of trumps 515 companies, he filed chapter 11 in only 4 of them, but he has never been personally served bankruptcy papers nor ever bankrupted personally.. totally false GO.. complete nonsense..

if you worried about service of the bankruptcy documents, just as a heads up, the courts there will allow attempted service 3 times i believe then if a fail, the usual process is service in newspapers, email, family/ friends, and whatapp.. they will accept that, so i cant see any issue on service of bankruptcy documents. any delay would be counted in terms of days only...

GO, you need to put your dubious asian business connections (whom you way are constantly being bankrupted but evading it with $30 mill spends...) to contact the singaporians/indonesians, hong and tanzil will need all their advices.. lol

but i cant believe your rantings GO, your not showing any precedents in singapore and quoting various criminal fraud cases from the 1980's and a us president whom has never been personally bankrupted, is hardly compelling nor relevant.. your not convincing at all.. infact you are entirely irrelevant..

unfortunately, the pressure moment in all of this is now, the noose is tightening, there is little these three can do now to evade the finality of what is about to be put in place, i totally believe every XST shareholder fully expects the bankruptcy process is implemented immediately, the directors are duty bound to enforce in singapore .. should the defendants refuse to repay the damages awarded to the company then bankruptcy is inevitable, and that will be rapid...

the only way to share in all of this is to be a shareholder. these are high worth individuals, its not like the bankruptcies will not recover nothing at all.. the only way they can get out of bankruptcy is to pay their way out or endure 7 full years of bankruptcy in that jurisdiction and ask to be released..

if clifford chance presented to xstate a position that the legal processes they recommended was going to be fruitless, then the directors would be negligent, my view on this is that the current board would not have entered into damages claim if the outcome was assessed as pointless by the best legal firm on the planet. so imho the probability of a successful outcome is far better than many believe.

best of luck to all holders,,