Schöne Bilder
Page 18 of the anual accout of update.com 2004 (search ABASE) is 100 % different from Virdict Dutch high cout of Amsterdam (HOF) ruled under public VERDICT number 615 Year 2005. Virdicts are public.
That the page in the anual account regarding the 6 mio claim is is NOT correct and the prospectus also not. Update AG is the sued party not Update NL (actual both)Update Lost 3 times before Dutch court
Hoekstra gave numerous internal Letters and e-mails free. The sigle defence against the claim was that Update AG should be sued in Austria. (Dutch court ruled this out in the Verdict)This means the complete page in the prospectus of Update AG is nonsens.Why is this still in the anual account after 4 years, if update tells us this is a nonsens claim and the normal time to finisch such lawsuit is 2 years.
So read pag 18 of the public anual account