upsnchors yr 22.27h post. Decc stated at the time the draft fdp was not acceptable for technical reasons, insufficient reservoir data, nothing to do with funding. Imo xer probably had the funding available then, they did get rbl later and had york, but they needed the technical approval to be there on the fsp/ssp plan to be able to finalise the costs and package.
Is this info not now coming via the liquidators? Whatever cole and co have managed a disappearing act for themselves, lets hope the liquidators do bring forth during course of investigation just what bod inaction and mistakes brought the situation to this.
Sorry, but the purpose of the egm was to call a vote on the rec of the bod for a motion/plan to be carried.
W/o a meeting how do you know in advance of an egm and vote count there the motion would not be carried. If the bod knew it would not fly, and they hold the share register and have been in consultation with the bondholders, why on earth did they even throw the plan up for a vote.
Sure there was a very vocal justifiable objection from pi's to the plan, but who knows just what that represented in % total w/o a formal count. If the bod had a figure shareholders should have been told, once again why the hell did the bod even conceive this without first being fairly certain it would pass. If they felt later it would not then the egm should still have been called.
Imo the bod were more in fear of a lynching at any convened gathering when they saw strength of opposition to them having given away the farm with the terms they accepted for the bonds, and what their flouted 'industry' valuation was being perceived to be in reality.
The 2011 draft fdp was submitted by xer to decc. Oga will probably try to weasel out by saying in empire building terms they are not decc but new entity so their conment technically correct, oga did not exist at the time.
One of xer's many screw ups was they did not check with decc that the ON well results were sufficient for fdp so some nonentity in decc for whatever reason and several come to mind rejected the draft fdp on the basis of insufficient reservoir data.
Hence with a $60m rig already on the payroll the $250m ewt was codged up before full funding and a partner in place, fdp/ssp was dumped for big boy and we are now where we are, years late and broke. Jmo.
You may recall - "The directors understand that should shareholders not support the Proposed Restructuring at the Shareholder EGM, the Bondholders intend to pursue enforcement action against the Company. On the basis of advice received by the Company and the directors, the directors believe that such enforcement action is unlikely to result in the return of any value to the Company's existing shareholders."
The shareholders made it abundantly clear they did not support the proposed restructuring. Quite why anyone is surprised at what therefore followed is a bit of a mystery.
Why would there be an RNS? They're no longer listed.
As per their final website update prior to the appointment of the liquidators:
As XEL's ordinary shares have been suspended from trading on AIM and admission to trading on AIM is expected to be cancelled on 28 November 2016, the directors do not expect to provide additional updates to the market. An announcement will however be made following any eventual appointment of liquidators to XEL.
Shambolic from start to finish, what happened to the egm, why was the bondholders proposal withdrawn, what happened with the phantom 'innovative' investor/guarantor concept, why did the d/d fail, so it goes on..vsad.
Whatever the final outcome of this fiasco if the company goes to a major the current execs will only get at best a small fraction for their stock of what optimally was there in 2011/12. What an all round crock they have turned this into.
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.