Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter




RRL Share Chat - RSS Feed

Range Resources Ltd Share Chat (RRL)



Share Price: 0.535Bid: 0.56Ask: 0.64Change: 0.00 (0.00%)No Movement on Range Res.
Spread: 0.08Spread as %: 14.29%Open: 0.535High: 0.00Low: 0.00Yesterday’s Close: 0.535


Share Discussion for Range Res. (RRL)


Thread ViewThread View
Please Login or Register to post messages
Posts per page:


Premium Membership
Celticheart
Posts: 6,569
Observation
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.54
PeckishPete
8 Jan '15
That's OK Pete, I can't remember you contributing anything worth reading either :)
 
PeckishPete
Posts: 47
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.54
View Thread (5)
RE: carvegyber
8 Jan '15
"It is not going to happen for reasons I have already explained"

Phew, I can relax now, can't remember you getting things totally wrong before.
Celticheart
Posts: 6,569
Observation
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.54
View Thread (5)
carvegyber
8 Jan '15
It is patently obvious that you and your cohorts have a vested interest in bringing this company down any way you can, You tried sewing the seeds of asset stripping, when that didn't take you switched your attention to the idea of Lind forcing us into receivership i(it is not going to happen for reasons I have already explained). I have no idea why you have such a vendetta against Range but feel it has to be personal rather than logical. To be honest I would take Omadawn's word over yours any day. No doubt you will continue to get lots of tick ups from the usual suspects but if it floats your boat. I will just wait and watch for my investment to come good, if it takes two years I really do not care but I wold seriously expect us to be in a much better position 6 monthsh from now.
carvegyber
Posts: 5,195
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.54
View Thread (19)
RE: Long and short of it
8 Jan '15
Omadawn,

I think you have totally misunderstood the whole episode. When a lender lends money to someone, they will spell out default terms. This is pretty standard across all lenders and all industries. Basically the RNS is telling you that this is now in default because it has been suspended for more than 5 days, Lind now is able to 'call in the loan' and that means demand the full repayment of the loan. NOT in shares as per the terms of the loan since this is already in default so the terms no longer applies. The default clauses applies and I would make an educated guess that the default terms would give the lender the right to appoint receivers should RRL fail to pay up. This is pretty standard default terms when a company borrows from banks or especially lenders of last resort like Lind.

The ability to put the company into receivership when it defaults is the reason why lenders exist. It is their 'tool' to ensure repayment.

Why they spelled out the no suspend for 5 days clause you may ask? The obvious reason is that because it gives them the ability to cash out on their repayments by immediately selling on the shares. What will lind want to do with a bunch of shares it can't sell. They will never accept that as payment now that this is in default due to the suspension. The RNS tells you that. Read it carefully. It has to be cash or nothing. The question left is only how much.....

Also you are wrong to say RRDS is a separate company and therefore ringfenced. RRL owns RRDS and when a receiver takes over RRL, he takes over everything that RRL owns. RRL selling on RRDS is very shifty and if it went to court, I suspect the judge would rule on the side of Lind for dissipation of assets when the company is in default.

Imagine this, you default on a bank loan but you sell your Rolls Royce to your wife for £1 after you have defaulted. Do you think the bank would not come after you? Which side do you think the judge would rule for? Use logic.

Also, I am afraid you are wrong in saying BOD does not need shareholders approval for 'voluntary winding up' of the company. You are seriously under-researched on how companies and PLCs function. To think people have been using your posts as gospel.

You better do more research before arguing with me using incorrect facts. All you have to do is google. all information is at your fingertips.
OMADAWN
Posts: 178
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.54
View Thread (19)
RE: Long and short of it
8 Jan '15
Carvegyber,

I was responding to point out some errors as you have done with my post

Lind can’t just serve a demand and call in a receiver. Their loan is too small compared to the overall value of the company and their asset security only has a value of $1M. There security is by way of shares, that would be a matter for ASX and Lawyers not a receiver.

Drilling services where held by a separate company and hence ring fenced from any claim by LIND over and above others.

A right to convert of default does not suddenly become a lien over other assets.

The Trinidad Petroleum laws are a fact. RRL have an extraction licence, not ownership of the land. Trinidad laws include asset seizure this is done for a number of reasons including a retention against outstanding taxes and restoration costs for the acerage.

You are correct in my wrong use of terminology, The board appoints an administrator the courts appoint an administrative receiver, and apologies if I have misled anyone.

The point I was making is that in this case is that a receiver would not be appointed, because of the shares that can be used to satisfy the loan. The BOD could however place the company into administration and LIND would be the last in the chain.

Shareholder approval is not required for a board to place a company into administration that is a matter for the Board.

The RNS quote you give has to be read in conjunction with the default terms...the write to convert the outstanding amount into shares.

Oma
Toonman
Posts: 142
Observation
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.54
View Thread (2)
RE: And finally
8 Jan '15
Whether or not you are right about the legality of shareholders acting in concert the utter shafting that shareholders have been subjected to probably makes it worth running the risk of attempting at least to get whatever protection they can. Furthermore when considering the "dodgy" legality of anything the shareholders might do some of the "dodgy" stuff this company has engaged in, to the considerable detriment of its shareholders, should not be forgotten. And I am not referring to the current regime on whom the jury is still out.
BhoyGeorge
Posts: 1,193
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.54
View Thread (2)
RE: alocasia
8 Jan '15
I value your posts too alocasia. This RRL board has become the morons versus the trolls, with a few Wibblers now appearing. Neither side listens to the other.... just got to get on with it....
Alocasia
Posts: 5,200
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.54
View Thread (2)
And finally
8 Jan '15
And finally, because I've had enough of this now, but just for the record, I have tried to HELPFULLY point out time and time again and truthinbeer will back me up on this, that RIG is on dodgy ground legally by forming an organised shareholder group with over 20% of the vote. But clearly you'd all rather pick a fight than have an intelligent discussion. GLA
Alocasia
Posts: 5,200
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.54
carvy
8 Jan '15
Thank you for your support, You are one of the very few people I have been able to have an intelligent discussion here with,
carvegyber
Posts: 5,195
Off Topic
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.54
View Thread (2)
alocasia
8 Jan '15
Hear hear. From memory, you were trying to do just what you said.

The BB would be a much more conducive place for discussions to deepen our understanding of RRL and the wider market if we refrain from accusing people using words such as:

Troll, sad, stupid, moaners, cheaper buy in (well that can't be used now cos it is suspended), bla bla bla.

Only trolling I do is on my boat....





Sign up for Live Prices


Home  |  Contact Us  |  About Us  |  Careers  |  Advertise with Us  |  Sitemap  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Cookies  |  Privacy


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.