London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
@bucklerfern, 'You can stop patting yourself on the back now. Some people here are actually awake.'
Really?, given the reaction it would appear to have been missed by quite a few a folk on here would you not agree?
You do seem to agree though don't you?
Your post of the o4th March:
'Next thing that needs to happen imminently (this week or next) is that #hur accept a CA director in the board. And bondholders should do likewise supported by the fact that stakeholders are all stepping up. We''re all sitting outside a ring of incompetence that we need to be inside of. The chairman also needs to step up and kick his BOD into line, and trim where necessary. This is a major major energy resource being managed by a pool of dithering fools.'
I'm not looking for a pat as you put it, I'm looking for a change in the BOD's as many are I suspect including yourself!!
@Jiffybag
You can stop patting yourself on the back now. Some people here are actually awake.
"Jonno41 Premium Member Posts: 870 Price: 3.00 No Opinion
CA seriously p..sed off
4 Mar '21
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/CRS/half-year-report/14887002"
This is only 50 pages back ...
@Pennysworth,
'Old News' ? maybe , not that olf 04/03/21, but how many folk on the HUR BB actually knew this?, I only found out the day I posted and felt compelled to share this, you obviously didn't :O)
@Dyflynch,
Exactly, we need a change in the BOD's that is more aligned to shareholder interests etc, however it ain't going to be an easy fix because we now also have to deal with the O&G Authority re Licences etc.
Simple solution IMHO would be a takeover by a proactive company aided by CA to develop what HUR already own, oil demand is not going to fall to zero for at least the next 10-15 years despite the soundings coming out of No 10. Jobs = Votes, No 10 know which side their bread is buttered on.
@Daltry,
Feel your pain, but realistically where are the compo funds going to come from?
I too have been bitten first UKOG (Don't laugh), second Sirius Minerals, but at least that case involved JPM a bunch of Bastrd's you know what they are all about, at least ShareSoc are now actively looking into that case and who knows SXX holders may yet get some justice.
As for Hurricane who's the source of any recompense?
Us HUR shareholders are at the bottom of the pile when it comes to class actions as all the creditors and bond holders are of a higher status IMHO.
@Dire Emblem
You asked '
'How much of a stake do CA have?'
Ans from CA
' Following last year's oil price collapse, the Fund added to its shareholding and currently owns more than 11% of its share capital. '
Interesting.
Research provided the following:
"Members' power to require directors to call general meetings (sec303 - sec304)
The directors must call a general meeting if so requested by the holders of 5% of the voting shares (or 5% of the voting rights if there are no shares). (The figure was reduced from 10% to 5% by the Companies (Shareholders' Rights) Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009/1632), reg. 4(2).
The request for the meeting must state the general nature of the business to be dealt with and may include the text of a resolution to be moved at the meeting (provided the resolution would not be ineffective (e.g. under the Act or because contrary to the company's articles, etc., and provided it is not defamatory, frivolous or vexatious).
If the request is properly made, the directors must within 21 days call the meeting for a date not more than 28 days after the date of the notice calling the meeting. If the request included a proposed resolution, that must be included in the notice, which will then be part of the business that can be conducted at the meeting. (If it is a special resolution, the notice of the meeting must say so, in accordance with sec283, above.)"
So if this is correct CA could obtain an EGM in their own right, and propose a change in the composition of the BoD.
I am sure that CA would get a lot of support from us PI's, if this was to occur.
DYOR & CSVP
Even better, we need lawyers who will work on a No win, No fee basis.
I, like many here, are a bit financially mauled by HUR.
Litigious action is what’s needed to sort the malpractice of this company. We need the support, in money , legal firepower, and numbers, to see it through. Anyone here a barrister who feels like cheated like us and will put in some pro bono work?
We are in a very unusual situation where CA are actually likely to get overwhelming support form shareholders who have given up on this supine board.
5. The governance of the company continues to be absolutely appalling. As CA point out the bond isnt due for repayment for 15 months even assuming that their b/holders don't agree on a roll-over on better terms etc....
The Board genuinely seem to want to wash their hands of their responsibilities to the shareholders and their staff. That we are at the point where with cash rolling in, and decent acreage, the Board has itself engineered the prospect of this failing as a going concern because of their actions and inactions should raise serious alarm bells with all stakeholders. It is verging on serious negligence that they have led this negative narrative and we now face monte carol or bust on the CPR. They do not seem to understand their roles in a listed company. I suspect also that given the wholesale failure as a board that litigation could be in prospect
Well, so far all the evidence speaks to a board frozen like rabbits in headlights. CA is absolutely correct to raise these points. 1. The Board's decisions have been overwhelmingly terrible: they have not backed their positions with sp support in form of shares so barely aligned with shareholders
2. Maris has not unveiled anything meaningful in terms of a strategy so he seems to be a caretaker, not a CEO
3. the last announcement about not pursuing sidetrack etc because of weather window contained no statement from the CEO which is highly unusual - he is clearly not in charge
4. The obstructionism that CA has encountered has a distinct ring of truth
That is extraordinary stuff from CA. And not helpful for the sp. So I assume that they have run out of patience, and now plan a more activist approach. I think Taverham is right.
Taverham - I think you are correct there. CA are not going to play softball. They are Rottweillers.
Not sure they will up their stake - more likely call an egm seeking resignations. Meanwhile the BOD do nowt but draw their salary waiting for a green light from bondholders for further spend on development.
Old news
That is an astonishing annual statement by Crystal Amber on HUR. They obviously see value that isn't being realised at present.
Wow, with the HUR BOD treating the largest shareholder like this how can we pretend that they are acting in the best interests of the PI? I'm really done with these oil companies. It's a shame now that the oil super cycle is perhaps here that I've been scarred by the greed and sociopathic behaviour of management including Rockhopper and a handful of now insolvent oil companies.
Something is truly rotten in the state of our crony capitalist society.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/CRS/half-year-report/14887002
On 8 January 2021, the Fund shared its updated technical report with Hurricane. This stated why the Fund and its consultants believe that the board of Hurricane does not seem to be focusing on the upside potential of the fractured basement play within Hurricane's licences. The Fund sought an explanation as to why Hurricane was not keen to tie back the existing Lincoln Crestal well which was reported to have tested at a sustained commercial rate. Production from Lincoln could significantly increase overall output with minimal pressure drawdown at Lancaster. The Fund believes that the Lancaster basement play may contain resources greatly in excess of the pool currently being developed by the Lancaster EPS.
At the date of this report, the Fund has not been provided with any explanation. On 14 February 2021, the Fund wrote to Hurricane requesting a call between Hurricane and its technical consultants. Despite follow up by the Fund, Hurricane has failed to arrange such a call.
On 14 February 2021, the Fund wrote to the Chief Executive of Hurricane requesting that Crystal Amber nominates a director to the board of Hurricane. Other than responding to note that the request had been shared with the board of Hurricane, the Fund has received no response to this request.
On 2 March 2021, Hurricane stated that within its stakeholder engagement, "discussions on the Company's formal work programme, strategy, financing and balance sheet recapitalisation are ongoing". As described above, the Fund has had no such discussions with Hurricane,
The Fund notes that the seven board members of Hurricane own shares with a total value of £60,000.
The Fund is no longer prepared to be excluded from participating in the evaluation of impending critical decisions by those who have virtually no skin in the game. The Fund always prefers to engage privately and constructively with its investee companies. However, the Fund has found the board of Hurricane to be both indecisive and obstructive. Therefore, it now intends to take appropriate action in order to maximise Hurricane's potential.
A trading update in January 2021 highlighted how cash generation has recently improved as a result of the recovery in the oil price, with the company generating $19 million in the month of December 2020 alone, taking cash to $106 million. The Fund notes that the price of Brent crude has recently continued its strong recovery, from $38 per barrel in October 2020 to more than $60 a barrel. The Fund believes that in 2021, this increase alone should add more than $100 million in cash to Hurricane. It should also significantly increase the value of Hurricane's other, hitherto, untapped resources if this level is maintained.
Say's it all really?
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/CRS/half-year-report/14887002
The Fund has been a shareholder in Hurricane since March 2013. In April 2016, Hurricane asked the Fund to invest £7 million to enable it to commence its workstream. Six months later, when Hurricane raised additional capital, the Fund invested £12.6 million at 34 pence per share. In the mishandled fundraise of June 2017, the Fund invested a further $10 million.
Aside from Kerogen Capital, which until recently was represented on Hurricane's board, the Fund is Hurricane's largest shareholder and the only disclosable institutional shareholder. Following last year's oil price collapse, the Fund added to its shareholding and currently owns more than 11% of its share capital.
The Fund regards itself as a long-term part owner of Hurricane. In 2015, the Fund introduced Hurricane to its highly regarded technical consultants who have engaged constructively with the company on several occasions. The Fund believes that since 2013, it has done everything possible to support the business.
Over the last six months, the Fund has experienced a dramatic deterioration in the way that Hurricane is engaging with the Fund. This is consistent with what the Fund considers to be inadequate, confusing and poor messaging to market participants.
Within its regulatory news service announcement of 11 September 2020, Hurricane stated that it would be "engaging with all our key stakeholders regarding our formal work programme and financial arrangements and updating the market". On 8 October 2020, Hurricane stated that "as disclosed in the interim results announcement, the Company intends to engage with all key stakeholders regarding its forward work programme, capital allocation and financing arrangements". During September and October 2020, the Fund suggested, following discussions with other Hurricane shareholders, that it should allocate a portion of its cash to buy in some of the Hurricane loan notes at below 50% of par value. The Chairman of Hurricane had previously told the Fund that he regarded such a purchase as "a commercial no brainer". No update on bond purchases or capital allocation has been provided to the Fund or the market.
On 18 December 2020, the Chief Executive of Hurricane told the Fund that he would ask Hurricane's lawyers if, given that there had been no covenant breaches and repayment was more than 18 months away, bond holder consent would be required before the company could enter into financial commitments on its forward workstream and capital allocation. He said that he would revert back to the Fund. The Fund followed up in writing on this point on 8, 13, 26, 27 and 30 January 2021. On 31 January 2021, the Chief Executive responded to say that they had been advised to "be engaging with the bond holders". There was no answer to the question as to whether consent would be required.
And take some lightweights out...
This could also come in handy in a takeover scenario ...