on the RBL facility. it is interesting the bond was agreed prior to the oil price falling...the rbl would have been reduced / eliminated subsequent to june 14 (when the oil price dropped) but why did the bod go down this route at that time prior to this...? i do not know who weiss is.
Plus the cancelled (by order RBL) that we had worked so hard for...if you go back Pete imo, this all stems from the initial involement of a sheister bunch called WEISS - Socious etc...al parasites that have (imo) feted Rupert ...his involvement is up to his crooked neck ...! Richard Smith will not be answering his phone as he wanted & wants NOTHING to do with it!
i have not followed xel history - but the loan would have sent me running for the hills . 24% yield (90% of par at issue plus 12% int plus 3% pik) AND security...not surprised you commented at the time!
...don't we at least have the right to know who is fleecing us ?
Had enough of Rupert ******* down our backs & telling its raining...why is there a need for this secrecy now ? The catholic church protecting its nasty clergy comes to mind ...something underhand & appalling....Rupert a lepoard never changes his spots...you failures are building up & a LOT of people are suffering!
ok - the detail is clear in the bond details (prior posted link - click on loan details). bond guarantors include the parent (xel). so the bh have called in the guarantee which xel can not satisfy, hence xel is bust as it can not repay debts as due.
so that leaves the bond debt in xer but with the bh taking xer via clause 15 of the loan agreement.
it is normal for the "security" aspect of secured bonds to include a share pledge of subsidiaries (inc XER). that means when the bh correctly declare XEL in default they can take the shares in XER as per the security agreement. not sure what the situation would be if the security asset is worth more than the debt but i strongly suspect it is not a consideration (in other words xel entered a deal and the deal is that the bh get the assets if xel is in default). inherent in this arrangement is keeping the operating co (xer) intact and trading hence preserving the asset value which needs the licence etc.
on your second point it is one or the other - my money is on the former. unfortunately sh had no option but to agree this re-finance inc dilution or face administration. i think the "head of steam" of pi's saying they would vote no (as per the online voting intention website) was sufficient for the BH to call it a day (SH had nothing to fight with). the only thing the BH have lost is one route to get there cash back (listing and hence sales route).
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.