Well said hayhay. This board have completely stiffed shareholders and the SP is now 3.5% of what it was 3 years ago. Anyone that has held the share has lost money. And if that isn't enough, now they want to dilute the pathetic fragment of value left in your shares so that there's next to nothing left for holders. Not a shred of evidence these scum have any concern for the shareholders that have been totally ripped off and no reason to believe they are about to start acting in shareholders interest in the future.
The poor aussie shareholders have been done twice, having seen their company stolen by a 16% shareholder who then gave it away to the pirates that run Igas while being told it was the best chance to monetise their investment. And if that wasn't enough they then found out that they couldn't even sell their holdings from Australia. Everyone should vote NO. This company is only going to steal your money anyway.
So with KC having the option to delist the company when all this goes through what is to stop them exercising that option? They could offer 10p/share and say what a great premium it is and they probably only need KKR who will be the 2nd biggest shareholder to agree and the company is delisted. Then in 2 years as fracking wells come online they do a new IPO on the FTSE for £5.
Please consider my posts below with arguments why Aussie and dissatisfied UK shareholders should vote NO. There are only a few days to go before the vote, so please consider your position on the vote as soon as possible.
I know every investor's position is different . however, in this case we have one thing in common. All existing shareholders are being shafted!.
Hi Jcw, I share your "loyalty" to a company like Igas that aims to develop its conventional oil and unconventional gas resources as part of a necessary national UK energy strategy involving energy security, affordability and contributing to greenhouse gas abatement for a several decades to come. However, such "loyalty" to a notional company like Igas should not translate to "loyalty" to the Board of the company if that Board has trashed your investment and is intending through the proposed restructure to hand the company on a plate to sophisticated and institutional investors, bondholders and to certain members of the Board itself. Quite frankly the proposed restructuring is rubbish and an insult to existing shareholders - and most certainly does not deserve any support whatsoever from the existing shareholders whether they live in the Australia or the UK. And certainly the Board does not deserve any "loyalty" whatsoever. In Australia there is a refreshing wave of activist shareholder investors trying to wrest back control of companies from boards and their senior management that do not pursue the interests of their shareholders, From what I have seen of the UK that sorely needs to happen there too..So I suggest your "loyalty" needs to be re-focused on loyalty to other shareholders of the company. You and other UK shareholders can do that by voting NO on the shareholder resolutions.
Thanks Beachhut. Yes approvals normally go with the land, but several recent planning approvals have required detailed back-up legal documents between the Council concerned and the applicant about how the approval will be implemented, including performance bonds for various matters including site restorations . If Igas ceases to be owner and operator of a site relating to the development approval , those documents may be unenforceable and the Council would be entitled to renegotiate or even require a new application to be initiated ( inter alia because the Council is under pressure from anti-fracking lobbyists or didn't like he intervention by the Minister for Communities in their planning decision-making). The upshot is that a bondholder taking "possession" of an Igas permit with an application in train or granted as part of a split up settlement of Igas assets is acquiring an asset that might prove costly to secure through to development and commercialization, and might in fact prove to be worthless if a beligerant Council or anti-fracking lobbyists obstruct that process ( as has been seen anti-fracking occur over the last few years across the UK!!) As they say "buyer beware",
Just one very minor point of correction - in point (5) you mentioned planning permission. The planning consent normally goes with the land not the applicant. From memory all the consents have been "normal" in this respect as there is no valid reason for them to be personal to company.
As I said, a minor point in the overall scheme of things!
Haha, that's true with the bunch of directors on this Piegas board. That actually made me laugh what you said. Let's hope for a turnaround. To be honest,i haven't got a clue how this is going to work out, I'm hoping loyalty will pay out in the end. But it's slow, slow, slow.
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.