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.
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.
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
Who says I haven't voted? You don't know anything about me. I have been one of the founding members of a shareholder group before. I didn't feel it gave me the right to act like other posters had to answer to me, but fwiw I thought I was contributing greatly by coming on here and pointing out that this could well be a takeover by stealth, but I was immediately attacked by CH and called a shorter.
I didn't come on here to moan and perhaps you should retract that comment. Go back and read my posting history if you are that interested in me. This has only got ugly because every time I post I get attacked and anyone with a view other than CH's gets attacked. I'm sure he's going to try to sound nice to everyone today because he knows he's under the spotlight but it won't last. I have had experience of a company being involved in a hostile takeover and I have brought my understanding of the legalities of this to this bb and discussed the 75% delist versus 90% compulsory purchase which was being misunderstood amongst many other lengthy and well thought out posts.
Pray tell, other than to be an investor here, what qualifications do I need to express a view on this bb? Do I need your permission or CH's? I think not.
For what it's worth my initial interpretation of your post was similar to Mickdee's. Only on second reading could I see it as you having a pop at Mr Ch rather than Mr Chen. Regards your earlier post this morning in response to mine - I don't think many would categorise me in either the hardcore happy clappy group or the we are all about to die horribly camp. The new crowd seem to be making all the right noises so far but I feel some of their actions need a little explanation e.g. the drilling company. I am certainly not rolling over and having my tummy tickled. As regards my comment on whether you voted, I have always been consistent on that, even prior to RIG, it is shareholders' main individual formal way of making their thoughts felt. Anyone who hasn't voted in the past but then comes on tinterweb boards moaning about where we are at needs to answer the question "So what have YOU done, exactly?".
Although you are right in that Lind could in theory call in the receiver, it wont for the simple reason that they know they will get their money by April latest but I suspect quite a lot sooner. No receiver in the world would recommend forcing the company out of business in such circumstances, it would be utter madness apart from which there is no guarantee that Lind would be a preferential debtor in any case. They also know that if this went that route it could take years for them to see any money owed. There is no question that our BOD have to negotiate this loan with Lind but I would be amazed if we did not reach a mutually acceptable agreement, given the circumstances.
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.