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.
...to let you all have the email of the court official who advised me to send in my representations, which
i have done. and she indicated that they would be placed before the Judge.
I have now sent them in. If you wish to do likewise here is the address: ChanceryJudgesListing@Justice.gov.uk
Please imagine that you are addressing Royalty and your tone will be about right!
Incidentally, I also argued for at least an adjournment of this hearing as I see another poster here thought would be a sensible tactic.
I suggest you entitle your email 'Hurricane Energy plc - Proposed Financial Restructuring. May 21st 2021.
oldbutnowisa,
Thanks for the link !
So another email out the door. It's all we can do.
Some people might laugh, but this is what I sent:
"Dear Sir / Madam,
I write to you as a shareholder in Hurricane Energy plc, regarding a hearing due to be held, referenced in the header to this post. Unfortunately, due to lack of information, I do not have a 'case reference number', and as seemingly the hearing will be held 'virtually', cannot be sure of any venue where others could attend in order to actively participate should they wish to.
Equally, I'm unaware of who will preside as judge for this hearing, and in absolutely no way would I wish to be considered to be thought to be trying to influence his or her thinking on the matter. However I do hope that the person appointed is reasonably aware of matters involving the oil and gas industry, particularly on the UK Continental Shelf, the potential 'stategic importance' that might hold for the nation, and is not simply versed in corporate financial law.
It is possible that it has already been brought to your attention that a number of current shareholders in Hurricane Energy plc are very unhappy that such a hearing has been convened, without any consultation with they themselves. This has already been brought to the attention of the Financial Conduct Authority, and we can only hope that that body is pursuing the matter with all haste, and may be able to advise the judge or his / her staff on their findings regarding the matter accordingly, prior to the hearing.
Yours Faithfully,
(abdoubleuk) (Though of course, that wasn't how it was signed) "
You do realise that given the dire situation with Hur and the legislation that is being used to bring the restructuring plan to court that, by you trying to stop the court from hearing or granting the restructuring plan (not that it would ever succeed) that it would just force the company into a controlled wind down and insolvency??!!!
So you end up with 0% as opposed to 5%??!!!
Crack on in that case but the only winners here will be the bondholders in either scenario and given that 83% of bondholders (as of Thurs) have accepted it above and beyond the 75% required, and given that shareholder approval is not required the court does not and will not need to take into account of any shareholders views. The recent legislation serves to deal with dissenting classes (including shareholders) so the law is very much on the side of creditors no matter how many shareholders write in to court!!
Up s**t creek without a paddle comes to mind
"However I do hope that the person appointed is reasonably aware of matters involving the oil and gas industry, particularly on the UK Continental Shelf, the potential 'stategic importance' that might hold for the nation, and is not simply versed in corporate financial law."
Lmao.
It's a restructuring mate. Ofcourse it'll be someone who would be more corporate financial orientated rather than someone who can read a CPR or use O-rings in between valves or vessels.
Also
"current shareholders in Hurricane Energy plc are very unhappy that such a hearing has been convened, without any consultation with they themselves."
Lol, again, in accordance to Companies Act 2006, there is no requirement for consultation with shareholders in this matter, as this is a financial restructure between a company (that is in financial distress) and bondholders, initiated by the company under the UK Restructuring Plan.
It's quite amusing how all these emails sent to relevant organisations... but not one has an alternative plan to the restructure to save the company.
To me, it just looks like you're all begging for your own investment decisions.
Aduk , perhaps the judge will call for an expert witness to provide technical advice, D Trice would be good!
mcadder,
Wrt your 14:24 post.
I hate to be boring with my references to poker. But if I've had a really bad night, yes, I prefer to get back on the road with an empty wallet than one with just five euros left.
This is now a real fight to the death. Or maybe not. Could be a chance to kickstart the thing back into life, but the only way will be showing up the bunch of shysters who've been pouring water into our tanks.
Slift,
"Lol, again, in accordance to Companies Act 2006, there is no requirement for consultation with shareholders in this matter,"
Lol to you to.
I am hoping to maybe receive a reply from ChanceryJudgesListing@Justice.gov.uk to whom I sent the message...
Even if I don't, no probs. They're probably busy people. Unlike yerself with your juvenile 'Lol' garbage.
mcadder,
"Up s**t creek without a paddle comes to mind"
Maybe. Meet you there. Because that's where you'll be as well.
Slift,
"To me, it just looks like you're all begging for your own investment decisions."
In that case, I'd advise you to run for cover or get your head down below the berm.
Because my take on things is that there are some very angry people around, and that they're not going to take this scam lightly.
Defend it (with your friend mcadder) as much as you wish, but others think otherwise, and are acting upon it.
Adoubleuk, did you receive a reply?
Might be worth giving Stuart a call.
Stuart Prestidge.
News reporter
The Shetland Times
Gremista,
Lerwick
ZE1 0PX
07776 996221
Adrianuk,
"Might be worth giving Stuart a call."
I've just done that.
Seemingly not the only one.
Plus also assorted emails, apparently.
Now 'onto the case', and very interested, trying to set uo an 'investigative team' for tomorrow. Aware of Hurricane, talked a bit of the tech stuff, horrified to hear about how private shareholders were unconsulted about the 'restructuring plan', so has promised to get onto it asap.
adoubleuk,
"Because my take on things is that there are some very angry people around, and that they're not going to take this scam lightly.
Defend it (with your friend mcadder) as much as you wish, but others think otherwise, and are acting upon it."
Fair enough.
But just remember this from me:
It's 0% or 5%. Fight for 0% if you want.
Slift,
"But just remember this from me: It's 0% or 5%. Fight for 0% if you want."
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
You an' your buddies can go dick around with your 5% as much as you like, 'til the cows come home. When it comes down to those percentages I'm just leaning back, maybe taking a drink, and just fooling about to see what happens.
In fact, that's exactly what I'm doing, having bought back in here. Plus 5%, minus 10%, back up 7% ? Meaningless.
Back up 150% and I might start taking notice.
This is a share which was once at 60p. Right now it's around 0.75p. Meanwhile there's a big boat West of Shetland drawing in around 10,500 barrels of oil per day into its tanks, selling it on via BP, and that's an 'insolvent company' ?
No, what the BoD is proposing is selling the Shetland oilfields as Scotland's biggest Chinese Takeaway. But they won't get away with it. :-))
adoubleuk,
"Slift,
"But just remember this from me: It's 0% or 5%. Fight for 0% if you want."
Stupid, stupid, stupid."
Sure, we'll see on the 11th June and 18th June.
AK do all oil wells produce the same amount of oil from start to finish or do the conditions change? Does the pressure drop or perhaps the aquifer levels rise until you need to do a water shut off perhaps? Of course we know 7z used to be quite prolific and is not shut-in due to water cut and 6 is heading in the same direction. It's just a shame with an uncemented liner in a bare back completion you can't do a water shut off, not that it would last. AICD's might be worth exploring but again without anything behind the casing they won't work either. This is the crux. The wells are ****ed. The reservoir is ****ed. The company is ****ed. You are all ****ed. Sorry but that's the reality. Why on earth did you buy back in when that RNS came out?
Please email or call Oliver
oliver.shah@sunday-times.co.uk
Oliver Shah
Business Editor
The Sunday Times
1 London Bridge Street
London, SE1 9GF
Mob: 07950 637212
has anyone tried Alan Partridge?
Aim Stocks Guru = Adoubleuk?
Nice letter you wrote. It's in the description of Aim Stocks Guru's video LOL.
Tuxedo8
" looks like shareholder action is now starting to gain decent momentum here both with the FCA and in the Courts, with media/politicians as next steps; HUR incompetent incredibly corrupt BoD’s arrogance with it’s shareholders and company assets (which they have been handsomely paid to look after, and with same board Chairman now in place for over 3 years!) is now way too obvious to go unnoticed, GLA."
Yes.
Please keep up the pressure in all directions.
This is NOT the same as something like SXX, a very speculatory venture (though admittedly interesting idea) but with no production, and which found itself out of money to get even close to production.
Hurricane is PRODUCING, selling via BP at profit, but proposing to now hang their shareholders out to dry for the benefit of some creditors (who've already presumably already reaped their interest), and claiming themselves 'potentially insolvent'. Well, s**t, yeah I too could proclaim myself 'potentially insolvent' tomorrow. In fact I probably am. But should that occur, I wouldn't be drawing salary.
A SCANDAL. A SCAM.
Slift,
"Aim Stocks Guru = Adoubleuk?"
Nice try. But absolutely no way !!!! :-)))
I'm just an aged old retiired oilman, poker-player, occasional freelance journalist, truck-racing fan, caver, boozer, cigarette-addicted, womanizer, etc.
AIM-stocks guru stuff to the kiddies.
NGR1616
"he has some issues."
(presumably referring to myself)
Yep, mate. you'd better believe it. Plenty of them. More than you've proably encountered in your life. You ever taken 32 hours nonstop doing a two-stage cement-job in the rain in Gabon? Or 72 hours nonstop for a platform -move in the Adriatic?
Nice memories.
You asked why I bought back in. To have 'skin in the game' once more, you idiot.