HUR.L Share Chat (HUR)

Teneo have not yet updated the home page on the Prax website but the ‘Appointment of an administrator’ form, effective 29/09/25, was filed at Companies House on Friday and the company status now changed from ‘Active’ to ‘In Administration’, so it’s now publicly official.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12157790

The next key documents will be the Administrator’s Proposals and the Statement of Affairs which will appear there in the days/weeks ahead.

As Prax E&P appeared to be just an intermediate holding company I don’t expect the initial process of identifying creditors and the liquidity position will take too long, unless they have created something convoluted during preparation for the failed GLA deal, or the connections to State Oil Ltd are taking longer to identify and clarify.

Catching up on several points:

The Deed Poll, Scheme Doc and other items are all available to download from Prax via the link provided by Redacted on Friday – suggest anyone concerned quickly download any PDFs of relevance in case it gets blocked. https://www.prax.com/information-for-holders-of-dcus/

Section 6 on page 12 of the Deed Poll – Obligations of the company [Prax E&P plc] to DCU holders - is where some protection of DCUs resides and which might provide some hope, and may be worth mentioning in any emails sent to the administrator?

----------

Alessandro Agostini is noted as “Head of Exploration and Production” on the JP Jenkins DCU page, not sure how up to date that is.

----------

RodneyT – “I guess cash could have been received by CS, cheques sent and then administration was annnounced? Instant change of situation and obligations legally. 'Stranded Asset' created?”

- Exactly that and I noted similar last Wednesday. The payment would have been transferred to CS by the Directors prior to administration on the 29th so would not have needed approval first (although the administrator would be aware of it via their appointed Director) and cheques likely posted around Friday 26th. The cash is now in limbo at best, returned to Prax E&P perhaps also possible (less any costs possibly deducted by CS!).

The timing just one day before payment was due, without any communication, is both appalling and telling!

----------

DiveCentre - “The question is whether the Prax E&P administration is separate to the Lindsey Oil liquidation because if it is we might possibly, and I emphasise possibly get some future payment. If they are connected then as unsecured creditors we will get nothing due to the secured HMRC debt.”

- Completely separate to Lindsey liquidation but is connected to the State Oil Ltd administration (that’s maybe what you meant?) through inter-company balances and SOL (Teneo) as shareholder of Prax E&P plc. The direct creditors of SOL including HMRC have no call on Prax E&P assets by default beyond the settlement of those balances, unless unknown guarantees were in place. It is the connections to SOL and also to the previous Prax Treasury function that need to be first resolved to determine anything remaining and the outcome for DCUs, IMO.

It is hoped that any guarantees are not treated as disadvantaging DCUs under Section 6 of the Deed Poll.

Gazelleman – your reply from ii “The payment for September we are expecting but we have not yet had confirmed details. We await confirmation, and when we do we will send communication to all our clients”. Seems positive to me. See what transpires next week then.”

- sorry to disappoint but the Brokers will have been notified in advance of the payment expected solely to help them reconcile and credit accounts on the due day (their “we are expecting” the same as AJ Bell issued to their clients the week before) but they know no more than we do here about what’s happened since, until they receive an update from the Administrator this week.

Their “We await confirmation…” is just a non-committal place holder to give them time; the administration now legally needs to go through official due process as set out in the Insolvency Act before payments can be released, if at all, and the timetable for that is unknown at this time.

----------

As DiveCentre posted it is important to keep in contact with your broker and check their corporate action notices so that you receive the updates as they come through the nominee account. If you hold DCU certificates for cheque payment you should be contacted directly/via CS.

The payment that was due last week (0.3p per DCU) and the 17.5% of the future sale proceeds from Serica (est. 0.127p) should both form the creditor claim for DCUs. The other claims and the assets available are all still unquantifiable until advised by the Administrator in due course.

The Serica deal is due to complete by the end of the year subject to regulatory approval, so any payout may need to wait until that is done, unless the administrator has enough visibility to make an interim dividend (part-payment) if available. What %/£ that might be, if anything, is unknowable at this time.

All of my posts on this website are solely IMHO based on personal research and analysis and do not constitute financial or legal advice. Always DYOR and cross check anything posted here to primary official sources. I am always open to correction if I have unintentionally misinterpreted or misrepresented anything.

Some of my last three posts may help answer some of the queries on the other forum - from fat frank, rahosi and ole in particular. Happy for a link to this thread to be posted across (rather than the full text) by someone if you wish.

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.html?ShareTicker=HUR&share=HUR.L&thread=EA90068F-339F-4DC9-A0D4-2FA1B08327D3

Other than that – and I am disappointed that this has become necessary - I withhold all permission for use of my copyrighted material in any other form or place. If I catch anyone else using lazy AI generated content that is then presented and includes any part of my posts taken out of context, I will ask LSE Admin to take action against them.

If you are using AI you absolutely have to make that clear - you have to state which AI tool you have used and also state the original question or premise that you fed into it. That allows others to see full context and to either replicate or refine/amend the process as necessary.

-/ End rant and best wishes to all ;o)

Corryvreckan1

I see all your posts have been copy/pasted on th advfnhur board by davidsmithcheshire1 with no credit to yourself. I suspect he is the same individual who used to post on this board as Kever.

DiveCentre - Yes, and they have previous with that same behaviour so it was fully expected and anticipated…it’s almost like the weasel fell into an obvious trap…

See my post below at 11:57 – Deed Poll free to download from link to Prax website.

It is worth reading the post by Rahosi on advfn which quotes a reply from the administrators.

It includes this statement:

“On present information, we anticipate that sufficient funds will be realised to enable a distribution to be made to unsecured creditors, however the anticipated dividend rate is uncertain at this stage of the administration due to the complexity of the claims that we expect to receive. We anticipate that the adjudication process may take a number of months.”

Thanks DiveCentre and thank you rahosi for the initial post, very helpful.

I’m amazed that CS ran the cheques without receiving funds but that might be part of their service agreement with Prax, so I stand corrected on my previous points about timing of payments to them which on reflection contained too much of an assumption.

Good to see Teneo confirm my previous posts that there are no secured creditors they know of against amounts due to DCUs (although their wording does leave open other possibilities) and that at least some payment is perhaps likely although it will take time to resolve the exact amount.

For anyone not directly registered as a creditor a more detailed version of the Administrators Proposals should be publicly available via Companies House in due course, once they have compiled the relevant data.

I tried to login to the website, from the Teneo letter, but the code given isn't recognised.

Logged in, but submitting any kind of claim didn't work.

Hank, what have I missed? What letter? I haven't received anything. I'm with Hargreaves lansdowne. Should I have received a letter?

I think everyone will get a letter from Teneo soon. There's quite a bit to it. Pity I can scan the 4 pages and post them here.

Hank 13

Teneo will only communicate with shareholders listed on the register.

For people who hold shares via a provider such as Hargreaves Lansdowne, AJ Bell and others they will not be listed on register as a holder. The only information Teneo will have is the contact details for their providers nominee company and they are only going to communicate with the nominee company, AND NOT THE BENEFICIAL SHAREHOLDER.

Frankly I am amazed at the ignorance of people who do not understand this concept.

And both DiveCentre and myself have already posted about that on here over the last week!

ii provided a very brief corporate action notice this morning that didn’t state anything we don’t already know and to wait for further communication from them.

The Administrators Proposals that I mentioned twice before have now been filed at Companies House and I expect they may be available for anyone to download in the next day or two. That will get you up to date with the situation and as summarised by rahosi on the other forum.

The full Adminstrator’s Proposal is now available to download from Companies House, 57 page pdf:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12157790/filing-history

And some further very helpful commentary posted on the other forum by fat frank this morning (cheers frank) that confirms much of what we have discussed on here.

Is anyone with access to the FAQ at ips-docs.com able to post the information relating to the DCUs?

Detailed Information relating to the Prax administration and DCUs can be obtained by going to the Companies House website .

Search for prax exploration and production Limited (Prax E&P ) and click on filings.

A detailed explanation is provided by the administrator (Teneo) date October 6.

A short summary is as follows.

Teneo believe that there are sufficient assets in Prax E&P to satisfy 100% of the claims of "Preferred creditors".These creditors are staff wages and associated payments and HMRC.There appear to be no secured creditors although there are obligations to other companies in the prax group.

Teneo believes that there are sufficient assets in addition to pay a dividend to unsecured creditors which includes DCU holders , although it is too early in the administration to estimate an amount or timing of such a dividend. The obligations of Prax E&P are contained in the deed poll that the company signed when the DCUs were issued. Those obligations include 17.5% of the "Net Revenues" of Prax Upstream Ltd (Prax UL) which is currently operating outside of the administration . "Net Revenues" also includes the amount received by Prax E&P should it sell Prax UL. Prax UL has been sold by the administrators to Serica.

The sale is expected to complete in a few months subject to Govt approvals.

Should a further oil uplift from Lancaster occur prior to the Serica closing that should provide additional Net Revenue to Prax UL available for distribution to unsecured creditors including DCUs.NB That is my personal opinion.

Following an email exchange between me and the administrators I learned the following.

The administrators have written to the DCU holders registered with Computershare to obtain information regarding the scale of the DCU holders.

In the case of nominee holders that information does not include the breakdown holdings of the nominees as Computershare does not have such data .

Accordingly the administrators have written to the nominees to obtain the breakdown,and mention Interactrive Investors and Barclays bank but not Lloyds bank.

The administrators said that it was the responsibility of such nominees to file claims on behalf DCU holders and suggested that individual holders contact their fund managers (nominees) to request them to file claims on their behalf.

So there appears to be some hope that a DCU payment will be forthcoming,but only after some months . The administrators expect to update the progress of the administration on a 6 monthly basis.

Ronwoking

Your statement:

“Should a further oil uplift from Lancaster occur prior to the Serica closing that should provide additional Net Revenue to Prax UL available for distribution to unsecured creditors including DCUs”, which as you say is your personal opinion, but is also something that has occurred to me.

There have already been two uplifts since the end of June (11/07 and 24/09) and there remains the possibility of another before the end of the year.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that until the deal with Serica completes Prax Upstream Limited remains bound by the terms of the agreement by which HUR was acquired.

Whilst we don’t know the extent of creditor claims the more that the DCU holders claim is valued at will proportionally increase the potential benefit to DCU holders. And there is also the question of entitlement to the proceeds of sale and whether the 17.5% promised in the Prax/HUR deal will still hold.

All of this remains unclear. The Serica announcement states they will receive payments totalling an estimated c.$100 million reflecting interim post-tax cashflows between the economic dates of each transaction and estimated completion dates, but there is much about this deal which has not been disclosed.

It is time to put these questions to the administrators.

Thank you both, just to add to those points:

- Link direct to CH filings in my post below on 10/10.

- It was highlighted before that the Serica announcement stated an “Economic date” for the Prax UL transaction of 1st July. That might suggest that the deal could be backdated on completion and therefore all offloads since then (July 12, Sept 24 and any other to follow) might accrue to Serica and not Prax?

However, I’ve not seen that officially confirmed anywhere so it’s down to the interpretation of “Economic date”. The Administrators’ Proposals does not refer to that date anywhere (that I can see) stating only “The Exchange Date of the Transaction was 29 September 2025…”. So as DiveCentre says it’s bit unclear at the moment (however, see end of my next post as well).

Ron - “The administrators said that it was the responsibility of such nominees to file claims on behalf DCU holders and suggested that individual holders contact their fund managers (nominees) to request them to file claims on their behalf.”

-absolutely, if anyone has not yet had communication from their broker about the administration then get onto them quickly to ensure they are registering a claim on your behalf. Lloyds Bank (including Halifax and iWeb) not being listed as creditors is odd, although they may use a different named nominee company?

From a quick, whisky aided, skim read through the Administrators’ Proposal:

Serica’s Phase One offer to buy PUL was just £1 !!!

However, completion of the deal now at £14.5m (subject to inclusion of a £1m retention) is perhaps the best likely outcome we can hope for at this stage. Important to note that there are further confirmation stages to go through prior to conclusion, expected by the end of the year, so not yet guaranteed.

Potential for Prax E&P to receive some distribution from the administration of Prax Treasury Ltd, if available and amount and timing unknowable for now, which would help any pay-out to DCUs.

I can’t see any specific mention of the 17.5% on sale proceeds from Serica being due to DCUs *, perhaps though due to the obligation not arising until the deal completes? I think this needs to be confirmed as part of the DCU creditor claim due to the legal obligation under the Deed Poll. That still wouldn’t mean DCUs receiving all of that claim, it would just be part of their claim against the total realisable assets of Prax E&P, which would include those proceeds at a future date.

* However, they do state a total unsecured creditor for DCUs of c.£8.5m which matches the expected 30/9 payment (2bn x £0.003 = £6m) plus the 17.5% x £14.5m from Serica (£2.54m) so maybe that is where they have factored it in without mentioning it. If so then it already excludes the possibility of the post 1/7 offloads accruing to DCUs…

Updating on my 5/10 post: “The direct creditors of SOL including HMRC have no call on Prax E&P assets by default beyond the settlement of those balances, unless unknown guarantees were in place.” Well, the scheming directors at Prax caught us out with a joint & several liability!

From the Proposals: “We estimate, on present information that HMRC will have a secondary preferential claim of c.£3m in respect of a Prax Group VAT liability for which the Company [Prax E&P plc] is jointly & severally liable. On present information, we anticipate that sufficient funds will become available to enable such claim to be paid in full. […] The Prax Group is finalising pre appointment tax returns and therefore this figure may increase.”

- They are not clear enough for me if the £3m is already the expected Prax E&P contribution to a larger Group debt or if it is the full amount of that debt that Prax E&P might have to contribute some, or all, towards. Will HMRC try to claim the full amount directly from Prax E&P or will “sufficient funds become available” from other parts of the group to cover any part of it?

- Also, I would argue that Prax agreeing to that J&S liability is a breach of Section 6 of the Deed Poll and therefore illegal (in my unqualified opinion only):

“6.1.3 The Company [Prax E&P] shall […] not take or omit to take any act, matter or thing (including, without limitation, entering into any transaction other than on arm’s length terms) the object or potential effect of which is to avoid or reduce the amount of any DCU Cash Amount or Deferred Payment.

6.1.5 The Company shall discharge its obligations under this Deed in good faith and shall use all reasonable endeavours to maximise the Deferred Payment.”

I have another view on this regarding a technical loophole but I’m not stating it in public, not yet.

The administration of Prax E&P is clearly a complex matter.

In my view ,if the joint and several obligation of PraxUL to HMRC was made proir to the deed poll date then it should not be in breach of the deed poll undertaking .If it was made after that date then that would be an actionable breach of the deed poll undertaking not to induce PraxUL to make take any action that would reduce its revenues.

The situation regarding further uplifts is complex as well. The Serica transaction is not completed until the consideration is paid.Any amount already paid by way of a deposit or advance payment may have entered Prax UL revenues for the date paid already. Funds received for uplifts prior to completion therefore do not belong to Serica.I am not legally qualified to state whether a backdate provision that deprives Prax UL of uplift revenues is legally sound but if sound then the expected uplift revenues will surely have formed part of the price Serica paid for Prax UL and that DCU holders are entitled to receive 17.5% of by way of the deed poll. So perhaps that issue is moot.

Thanks Ron, point taken on the date of the J&S which I hadn’t considered. Prax E&P were incorporated on 15/8/19 and had previous names including the words Prax Global Finance, so potential to have agreed cross Group positions on liabilities prior to HUR. I shall slowly extract my skewer from that point…

I didn’t explain my point about the Serica Economic Date very well (I did say it was whisky aided :/ ) and what I was intending is that if the transaction is backdated to 1/7 then Serica have ownership of PUL from then and that would release Prax E&P from the DCU obligations that would otherwise come from any subsequent uplifts. As we both indicate, it is then factored into the sale price of £14.5m and DCUs get their claim as creditors on that, if completed. But as I noted, I can’t see that date anywhere in the Proposals so it remains subject to official confirmation and also clarification on any economic impact.

If I understand the Proposals right (ha!) they indicate background transactions involving Serica picking up decommissioning costs to release the Prax insurers from an obligation?, and Serica will also have to make further investment to complete other pending transactions, so not unsurprising for them to then factor in any net gains from the known uplifts to cover some of that, and therefore request a backdated transaction to support their £14.5m offer which might otherwise have been lower?

Or not, just musing.

One further point that i came across today.

My understanding is that the preferential status of HMRC claims only applies to VAT debts and certain other debts relating to staff employement such as PAYE and NIC contributions.