Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
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.
A bit of good news and hopefully we all be happy just glad i didnt buy like some in the pounds - Dreadfull taking so long this falkland story surely by next year as they say --This time next year rodney
Yep, it was the worst farmout Ive seen. It was clear PMO didnt have the money, then the drop in oil price was the nail in the coffin.
Kurgan
Don’t be a prat. I referred to the legal process insights, but as I also wrote, I value OM at zero.
RKH has been binary since the PMO deal...SL sanction or not. I am staying in as it is my highly speculative punt which could pay off big or go to zero. The rest of my portfolio is far more balanced.
It’s a free market: sell, hold or buy, your choice
Fibonacci
Thanks for your insight. Clearly you know way more about this area than I do :)
I guess my salient point still broadly applies that: whilst the RKH case has to pass certain thresholds for them to take on I would assume they spread that risk in turn by having multiple cases and internally expect to clos x of them
either way, as I say, my post was more to remind myself that OM is in no way guaranteed and even if won, as you say, the actual payout may be lower than some are imagining.
Personally, I factor it in at 0% in my risk evalutaion....its all about SL sanction by PMO
Thanks for your helpful insight though, we need more of this interaction on this board rather than rants and abuse
Hi Auson
In response, no, I do not know of him beyond what is on the web page; he is a 10 year PQE Senior Associate.
However, as to the way in which such firms work, new client instructions on matters like this do not go into Senior Associates, they go into Partners or Counsel (as they have in US firms, such as K&S and to be distinguished from Counsel in England which is another word for barrister).
Partner/Counsel then runs the client relationship and strategy on the case, and Associates and Senior Associates do the leg work. At 10 years in, he will be pretty much running the case day to day.
To be absolutely clear about K&S, they are a class act in this field; this is not no win/no fee on ASU insurance, it is big ticket litigation and they will have taken a cautious approach at risk committee level before running this given the value of the time that would otherwise have to be written off if they lose/ do not get execution of judgment debt.
On that last point, there is no particular time frame in which execution would happen. As I said before, do not necessarily expect an extra several hundred million in Q1 2020 from this.
F
Fibonacci112,
No apology needed, Olliesky's autocorrect changes me to Ausole..Now who'd of thought it. As you seem very knowledgeable in this area, do you know anything about Ben at K&S ?
Fresh ideas, new management required I think, they've been taking the coin far to long
Hi Auson
It did it again (*Again - and also tried to change Auson to Austin this time around).
Got to hate autocorrect!
F
Hi Again
I agree with all of that. And apologies for the autocorrect typos.
F
My god you are still at it Prat. Who cares $ or £, its OBVIOUS what I was saying.
ralph2010,
I think in my original post I said a 'potential' $200m. Which you changed to £200m ( close to a $60m dollar mistake ) or nit picking as you call it. In my next post I mention the claim is a reported $275m which you change to a mere $275 ( which could be a even more costly mistake )
Your delightful post below
' ralph2010 RE: Zama Sale Sun 11:04
You really are a prat arent you. Claiming and getting $275 are 2 different things. A good chance of winning, but I doubt they will get the whole amount claimed. Thats my view so sod off '
Prat, your point was not that at all, this mornings post is a back track on your Prat attempts to split hairs.
Fibonacci112,
Thanks for you well reasoned post.
That sounds about right so somewhere around a 60-75% chance of success. As I said previously its been reported that the claim is $275m. I don't think anyone is invested here hoping for this amount to be going into RKHs coffers. My point was that there is a 'good'chance of an award, like I think there is a 'good' chance of UKEF, and a 'good' chance that Tony Durrant wants to press forward with Sealion.
King & Spalding secured an arbitration award – one of the largest ever rendered under the Energy Charter Treaty – on behalf of the clients in December 2013
Superrich
That is not how it works with litigation of this type. In order to get the backing of both a risk committee at the firm, and more importantly, the litigation funder and the after the event insurer, prospects of success of 60% or more, with a supportive leading counsel's opinion, are required at the outset.
Ax I have said before, no lawyer will give more than a 75% chance of success on a case due to the concept of litigation risk, that is, that things happen in a case which are outside the control of the legal team (a judge/arbitrator does not like an argument, a witness does not perform and so on).
That is not to say that the risk in a case will not change during the course of a case, but at the outset, this will have been given good prospects of success at K&S.
The bigger issues on the ON litigation are: 1. getting execution any time soon if RKH win; and 2. the fact that a lot of the damages, if recovered, will be eaten up by King & Spalding, the litigation funder and the after the event insurer (together with the 12.5% insurance premium tax on the ATE insurance). I have said before that anyone thinking that hundreds of millions are riding in over the hill in Q1 2020 could be in for a nasty surprise. It is perhaps more likely that the judgment debt receivable would be sold at a substantial discount if cash is needed.
??????????????????
Please explain where my "half facts" are and explain "the whole story" if you please. Your post there seemed to contain a lot of waffle and not much else. I was expecting a bit more as you seem so sure with "Strong Buy".
I don't have issue with your opinion but you seem no better than the so called "bashers" you want to protect everyone from. If you have posted before and don't want to type everything again, just direct me to your posts which contain your reasoning or thoughts, then I can make an informed opinion with regards to what you have to say.
Seriously I apologise if anything I have posted has been incorrect or misleading in any way, but to say I am a disingenuous poster........... well I don't know how to respond to that, so please do explain where I am going wrong.
Many thanks
LTT
Nigoil, more waffle. You were asked a reasonable question, why dont you back up the strong buy?
The one thing about the OM case that we should probably all consider is that it is very likely the legal firm have multiple cases on the go and expect to win a proportion and lose the rest
RKH could fall in either camp
So when people say “why would they spend xx££ speculatively?” well, that’s their business model.....work five cases and expect to win two...
I’m long RKH and staying in to see this play out but I am in no doubt that it is highly speculative and I may lose the lot.....anyone who continually posts that it is a strong buy and a sure fire winner is, frankly, overly optimistic at best and dangerous at worst
Nige, how about answering LTT's question, and preferably without being rude and without the spelling and grammatical errors, which don't do anything to make your rant look credible.
Oh yes, what does "simples" mean?
Nigoil can you explain to me how I can think out of the box and see this as a massive strong buy rather than a “high risk speculative buy” ?
I mean that in honesty, I am wondering if I have missed something or how you are seeing things so differently to many others on this board.
Many thanks
LTT
If memory serves, $50M they get 25M, $100M award they get 35M, so there is hopefully some expectation/hope of a six figure award
Cubane
Prat, $200m or $275m, what ever. I still don't think it will at that level .
So you saying that the "A world leading Litigation funder is backing this case risking their own money" are wrong with $275m and you are right with $200m. Make your mind up, one minute you are sucking them off, the next its you that right.
All you do is try and nit pick and split hairs, something wrong with you buddy. It was obvious what I meant, Prat.
ralph2010,
I originally stated $200+m ( thats US Dollars ) you seem to be able to copy that down alright but when you type it out yourself you put ' I am questioning the ~£200 million idea'
Are you quite sure its me that looks like a prat here ?
You really are a prat arent you. Claiming and getting $275 are 2 different things. A good chance of winning, but I doubt they will get the whole amount claimed. Thats my view so sod off
ralph2010,
A world leading Litigation funder is backing this case risking their own money, most likely at a cost of several £millions. A leading International Arbitration lawyer who specialises in Oil and Gas claims and has a great track record of winning hundreds of millions for clients in Oil and Gas cases, is claiming ( damages reported in media sources to be $275m )
Yet you state 'I wouldn't count those chickens' and 'I am questioning the £200m idea'
Are you quite sure its me who thinks I always know better ?
I am questioning the ~£200 million idea, a perfectly valid stance. But you always know better dont you