Oommgg, it depends on which shorties, if it's their own shorties, they will make money, but if outsider shorties, they will lose money

Oommgg, now only you know how smelly is this Armada operator gang, they are very very much cunning, already tasted their colours many times earlier

Their own shorties can make money, but outside shorties mostly cannot make money

This counter is heavily manipulated by Armada operator and also EPF and their colluded shorties, they are the main controller for the price, so if outsider keeps buying, they will keep dumping their shares, as they wanted to collect more and more cheap shares, till they have collected enough of cheap shares and quantity they want, then only they will push

This counter is heavily manipulated by Armada operator and EPF

Won't have any rebound one mikekim, even though I agreed with you mikekim

EPF should be keeping dumbing their shares in market, that's why attract alot of shorties, and maybe they have yet to collect enough cheap shares in behind

0.40-0.42 again, similarly to 0.20-0.22, 0.30-0.32

Today won't close green already, heavy manipulation by Armada operator

Buy rate is only 10%, ridiculous, totally no rebound at all

Buy rate only 11%??

Buy rate only 13%??

Not only no rebound, selling pressure still strong, still got alot of shorties

Totally no rebound, Armada operator really cunning

https://malaysiainvestment88.blogspot.com/2020/01/bumi-armada-latest-analysis-drop-hugely.html?m=1

Oil price up to 60 and djia up almost 200 points, yesterday sold down by shorties, not sure they will buy back or not

I think current price will definitely attract alot of external investors and funders

Oil price and djia futures rebound

Armada is now super undervalued, might attract other funders to buy cheap actually

Totally no rebound

Don't think Armada operator will push up again till 14 February, even though now the price is too much ridiculous low, really super undervalued

This counter fully manipulated by the Armada operator themselves, down is easy, but up is very hard

The previous announcements made on 4 March 2016, 8 March 2016, 11 March 2016, 14 March 2016 and 21 April 2016 respectively by Bumi Armada Berhad (“Bumi Armada”) on the above matter refers.

The matter arose out of a dispute between Armada Balnaves Pte Ltd (“ABPL”), our wholly-owned subsidiary, and Woodside Energy Julimar Pty Ltd (“WEJ”) in relation to a contract for the provision of floating production storage and offloading services dated 30 September 2011 (“Contract”). On 4 March 2016, WEJ purported to terminate the Contract by issuing a notice of termination to ABPL. ABPL considered that this purported termination by WEJ amounted to a repudiation of the Contract, which entitled ABPL to damages.

On 14 March 2016, ABPL filed a Writ of Summons in the Supreme Court of Western Australia (“Supreme Court”) against WEJ for, inter alia, (i) a declaration that WEJ was in repudiatory breach of the Contract and (ii) damages for WEJ’s breach of the Contract. The trial for this matter commenced at the Supreme Court on 18 February 2019 and concluded 27 March 2019.

Judgment was delivered by the Supreme Court on 24 January 2020 as summarised as below:

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of WEJ on ABPL’s main claim of repudiation of the Contract.
ABPL was found to be entitled to a payment of USD 2,000,050 for unpaid milestone claims and AUD341,165.29 for unpaid invoices. ABPL was found to be required to pay WEJ AUD1,567,302.20 for reimbursement of miscellaneous charges.
Bumi Armada is currently reviewing the judgment and considering possible grounds of appeal. Any appeal is to be lodged by 14 February 2020.

Bumi Armada will provide updates from time to time on any further material developments on this matter.

Armada already announced

Too much undervalued

Now Armada price is super cheap, who won't buy

When every big up, it will have big drop first

Everyone now knows price will drop, do all will get ready to buy cheap

0.45 also very good to buy ,why sell? Sell only 0.70+++

Spinning lotus, what is the content you posted? Why removed? Can share again?

Ya, panic selling is really good time to buy

From their ways of writing, already know they are just stopping us from buying Armada further

Rj, don't ever bother this new comer with few posts only and talked bad about Armada with no solid grounds

Anyway, smart investors will come in actually if they really study in details about the judgement

I think those who really read the court judgment carefully, will definitely know the actual result, US 165.5mil and RM 5.5mil award, will immediate enhance the share value for 12cents, no need to mislead most investors here, all are not stupid

Remember listen to mikekim valuable advice la, the title of the judgement is misleading

mikekim There are 2 components:

1) 275.8m - court dismissed this, but states that 165.5m has some merits on “secondary issues”. So this will most likely be in the appeal of BA - 165.5m. Takes another 6 months or so, then we’ll know whether BA can get anything or not.

2) 7.7m - other sundries. On a net basis, BA is awarded around AUD2m or RM5.5m

Woodside’s announcement is based on 1), without considering the 165.5m potential appeal by BA which the Supreme Court judge acknowledged may have some merits in the event that his decision gets overturned by court of appeal.

So I think BA’s announcement is going to be like, we’re awarded about AUD2m, and we’re going to appeal 165.5m because we believe we have grounds to win the appeal, which the Supreme Court has acknowledged there are merits to it.

So based on this, make your call.

Actually, just assume 0 Claire award for 1), and AUD2m for 2), so basically is a small gain because Claire has been written down in 2016. The company had a lottery ticket that won a small prize, that’s it. It’s still consolation peanut ibox prize.

This judgment has no material impact on BA’s operations or financial results (small gain only), and Q4 results are way more important, esp Kraken and OMS performance.

I look forward to a dip next Tuesday (hopefully). The bigger the better for collection before a rebound in Q4 before market comes to its senses and see the turnaround big picture. The market always does this, so it’s an opportunity to take great advantage.

Get ready your bullets!!

And every 17th day, it will up fast, and Armada already dropping for 12days from 0.55 to 0.465, tomorrow is 13th day, so I would expect this coming Friday and next Monday will rebound big, therefore, tomorrow is the best time to buy on dips

Actually I observed how Armada operator manipulating this counter, when good news they will sell, when announced so called bad news, then they will keep buying and sapu

Don't forget the actual US 165.5mil and rm5.5 award, will enhance the share value of 12cents on the spot

I predict tomorrow, once announcement is made , price will drop first, that's the best time for us to buy

Yes everyone ready here

I think a lot of smart investors here will pump in more to buy on dips already, US 165.5mil and RM 5.5mil are considered a valuable partial awards, which enhance 12cents for the share price gain

Just listen to mikekim valuable advice la, the title of the judgement is misleading

mikekim There are 2 components:

1) 275.8m - court dismissed this, but states that 165.5m has some merits on “secondary issues”. So this will most likely be in the appeal of BA - 165.5m. Takes another 6 months or so, then we’ll know whether BA can get anything or not.

2) 7.7m - other sundries. On a net basis, BA is awarded around AUD2m or RM5.5m

Woodside’s announcement is based on 1), without considering the 165.5m potential appeal by BA which the Supreme Court judge acknowledged may have some merits in the event that his decision gets overturned by court of appeal.

So I think BA’s announcement is going to be like, we’re awarded about AUD2m, and we’re going to appeal 165.5m because we believe we have grounds to win the appeal, which the Supreme Court has acknowledged there are merits to it.

So based on this, make your call.

Actually, just assume 0 Claire award for 1), and AUD2m for 2), so basically is a small gain because Claire has been written down in 2016. The company had a lottery ticket that won a small prize, that’s it. It’s still consolation peanut ibox prize.

This judgment has no material impact on BA’s operations or financial results (small gain only), and Q4 results are way more important, esp Kraken and OMS performance.

I look forward to a dip next Tuesday (hopefully). The bigger the better for collection before a rebound in Q4 before market comes to its senses and see the turnaround big picture. The market always does this, so it’s an opportunity to take great advantage.

Get ready your bullets!!

Current price already not factored in the Claire compensation award, why need to be pessimistic

Don't say 2.months, 1 month later also will regret if not buy cheap by Tuesday

Because us165.5mil and rm 5.5mil would contribute to 12cents increase of share value

True, very good opportunities to buy on dip by next Tuesday

Please take note, that means Armada can only claim up to US 165.5mil as damages from Woodside, really need to study the report in details,then only can come out the conclusions

However, at the end, I am left the more persuaded, as I venture
down this hypothetical lost income opportunity damages path, by the
logic of the conclusions as reached for AB by Mr Ashby, as seen
reflected under the Ashby Bar Graph - subject to one qualification.
767 In particular, I prefer and accept as the more persuasive,
Mr Ashby's methodological approach as concerning disputes over the
following items as between the two accountants:
(a) MPPT of $US33.3 million (which, as I indicated, is largely due
to its secure trial evidentiary foundations);
(b) accelerated costs of $US3.4 million;
(c) interest of $US7.6 million;
Page 231
(d) the milestone B12 $US2 million payment (a necessary
consequence of this wholly hypothetical alternate analysis -
which necessarily proceeds in this hypothetical environment on
the basis that practical completion would have been achieved by
AB for its FPSO Facility);
(e) tax of $US0.1 million;
(f) other cash flows of $US6.2 million;
(g) inflation of $US0.4 million;
(h) working capital of $US0.5 million;
(i) start date amount of $US2.7 million; and
(j) discounting of $US0.3 million.
768 The only calculation by Mr Ashby upon the disputed items that I
do not accept is his capital expenditure allowance of $US6.8 million.
769 Towards that item, I prefer as the more logical, the rival approach
of Mr Jaski for WEJ as to a likely future incurring of potential future
expenditure under circumstances, where there was no 'back-to-back'
reimbursement applicable for it. By contrast, Mr Ashby's instructions
had been to the effect it should be assumed by him no further capital
expenditure would have been incurred by AB from April 2016 to
August 2018. Mr Jaski was not in this realm conceptually fettered by
such an instruction and so, I prefer his overall approach to this issue.
770 In end consequence then, I would, if necessary, under AB's less
preferred damages scenario, assess AB's loss of profits in US dollars by
reference to the Ashby Bar Graph - but with an excision of his capital
expenditure figure. Hence, the end calculation is $US172.3 million,
minus $US6.8 million, culminating in a net loss position for AB of
$US165.5 million.
771 That completes all my findings and conclusions on the trial's
secondary issues, should they be required.

Please take note, even though judge dismissed it, BUT , following paragraph 387, deal with the secondary issue aspects of the trial, which is the loss of damages suffered by Armada

Conclusions on the key issues
381 In short, I have now concluded:
(a) there was never a point of confrontation in the SA contractual
relationship requiring Apache/WEJ to make a choice as
between inconsistent rights under the SA until, at the earliest,
there was more clarity on the issue of whether or not AB could
get itself to a position of presenting its FPSO Facility to perform
the OET which, as matters turned out, was not until
6 September 2015. Under the agreed terms of the LQE, WEJ
then issued a Notice of Entitlement on 25 September 2019, only
a matter of days after AB's failed 72 hour attempt at the OET
between 13 - 16 September 2015. A 120 day LQE standstill
period necessarily followed. Here there was no relevant
confrontation for Apache/WEJ with a need to choose, until all
these events had unfolded.
(b) in the prevailing circumstances, there was no relevant delay by
Apache/WEJ by not issuing a notice of termination for cause
under Article 10.3(xiii) of the SA until 4 March 2016. Nor was
it unreasonable for WEJ to hold off until then before issuing its
notice of termination; and
(c) there was no relevant conduct by Apache/WEJ which
communicated to AB by way of inference, imputation or
otherwise, post 9 February 2015 and before 4 March 2016, that
there was an abandonment by Apache/WEJ of the 9 February
2015 then acquired right to terminate the SA for cause under
Article 10.3(xiii) of the SA.
382 As a result of these conditions, WEJ's termination for cause of
the SA taking effect 30 days after 4 March 2016 was valid and
effective. There was no wrongful repudiation or breach of the SA by
WEJ. Accordingly, AB holds no right to breach damages against WEJ.
383 Consequently, I am of the end view that AB's foundational case
seeking to show a loss of the contractual right in WEJ to terminate the
SA for cause at 4 March 2016, and then to show WEJ's breach of the
SA by reason of the issue of the WEJ Notice of Termination of 4 March
2016, is not sustainable. AB's action to that end fails and must be
dismissed.
384 But if my foundational assessment above were found
(hypothetically) to be otherwise, with an opposite conclusion reached,
namely, that WEJ's termination for cause right had been lost, by an
election to affirm continued performance of the SA by conduct, some
time before 4 March 2016, then it becomes necessary thereupon to
consider and to evaluate some of the many (secondary) arguments
which were further presented at the trial on both sides.
385 The contentious factual evidence at the trial only really becomes
relevant within that secondary hypothesis environment. I deal with a
number of the secondary issues in Part IV of these reasons.
386 But before exploring any more of those fallback secondary
position arguments, the next section of the reasons will chronologically
collect all necessary findings of fact in what were still mostly
uncontroversial areas.
387 Following that assembled chronology of factual findings, I can,
on a somewhat abbreviated basis, given my primary adverse conclusion
against AB, deal with the secondary issue aspects of the trial.