Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. 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.
As spike said; RKH is a totally different case. Debt free , very cash rich and had the sense to buy producing assets that covers their G & A. Has a superb asset which they can wait on. I hold a significant number.
Today received a notification from my broker that the Nomad for XEL has resigned & there are no plans to appoint another as the company is to appoint a liquidator...nice christmas present from Rupert & co.
....dead, this board is dead, the fight has gone.....I can't even be bothered to abuse Overtit.
Leg, you know there's no problem with this being 'Transferred' to the new owners...shoe in, well done Rupert , managed to get something out of this sows ear.
http://uk.advfn.com/news/DJN/2016/article/72856646 So they predict $60 a barrel in nominal terms by 2020. Unless our UK Government step in with a guarantee loan package to encourage smaller operators, the UKCS is finished. Aberdeen and surrounding areas cannot take another year, let alone four more years at $60. No one will touch the likes of Bentley/Bressay at the moment if this is the case....Good luck with the sale bondholders!!!!
RKH is a waiting game and has the finances to sit it out - xel should have been doing deals around the same time - anyway! Back to xel... how long do we hear before the formal processes start or have the OGA been in touch and said: due to public interest we will not be supporting any transition of licences?
But It's over, goodbye, Прощай, adiós, arrivederci. Cole & Kew have pulled our pant's down & FCUKed all shareholders. LEGENDS please don't defend KEW.
Gordon - I doubt it with Rockhopper. Debt has been the killer here, where as the RKH BOD have always been fiscally very responsible so the company is well funded,can sustain itself for the foreseeable future and as it had been doing making some opportunistic purchases of production and potential outside of the Falklands. I suspect Rockhopper will prove to be a good investment in the long run at current price - there are of course risks in the junior E&P space but they seem very low.
Although very different of course I wonder what observers interpretation of the current situation going on with the Rockhopper share price is? As a substantial shareholder in Xcite prior to it's demise (100,000 + shares) I wonder if there is a similar depressing outllok down the road for Rockhopper which I also hold. I would welcome any constructive comment
Gkp is not on AIM.
A letter to MPS is a total waste of your time and money. Many other AIM shares have gone down the tube and I expect GKP to follow. I bailed out off of this share a few years ago when it started slipping from £3.00. To think it has fallen so far from grace is criminal (sadly not in a court of law) AIM is a lottery 1 winner for 30 losers. At least with a lottery you understand how you lost the money
You'll note that I said 'Start' and not 'Finish' as this action is not the only route to awareness of this debacle and any action from the PI's can never be a waste of time imo ... My concern regarding the insolvency practitioners is that it's already been 'packaged' by the BoD (influenced by the BH's) so that any objections or insistence by the PI's (on forming creditors groups) will be futile in the face of what the BoD (and BH's) have already arranged. If we are going to effectively impact on the insolvency then we need to do it collectively - but from the reduction / lack of posts here and on other sites recently - then it appears the PI's need stirred up to action in any shape or form!!!
Quite agree re mp's, waste of time.
Whilst it is a noble intent to pursue the BOD to be brought to account writing to MP's will achieve nothing IMO. The best route again in my opinion is to approach the insolvency practitioners at the creditors meeting when it is convened and then insist on a creditors committee to be formed. This will enable both the directors and the liquidator to be held to account to ensure all information becomes available for all to see. It will also ensure that it is transparent as to how and when the company became insolvent and also what the role of the BH's had in relation decisions that were made including the attempted change of the M and arts. Off of the back of this full disclosure which is mandatory the credit Commitse can insist that the Liquidator writes a report relating to the conduct of all directors if it is obvious that impropriety has taken place and can even recommend that the directors are in some cases struck off. In addition if influence was brought by a particular key party to ensure that the company had continued to trade despite being insolvent then they would be equally liable and damages could be sought. Petitions no matter how noble and letters to MP's will not cut it despite raising awareness what is more important is that as many shareholders attend the creditors meeting to ensure that a creditors committee is formed and that the liquidator is forced to explore all options that might lead to the BOD being held to account and possible financial claims against certain key influencers in this sorry episode
Even any sort of holding argument that can initiate delay is not going to play into the plans of the bondholders in the countdown now to lease expiry. For all parties this needs to ne resolved within the timeline now to end June '17. At this rate also Chadwick one would have to assume will be gone. What a crock this bod has initiated.
Exactly, a co-ordinated approach, away from the useless nonentities that have 'managed' the company to this level. Who would give them any credibility in negotiations, and clearly too much conflict of interest there with the bulk of stockholders. Needs imo to be aimed at the court and liquidator in bvi, and locally lawcourts re fiduciary duties, years of bs, and oga to protect the asset for existing shareholders while the legal process is ongoing, even to the extent of govt assistance with what is a national asset re guarantee or funding. But not at this point on lease termination, someone clearly is prepared to put more money in to this. Jmo..
Then email other entities: SFO Xcite reference: lkl2s FCA: Confidentially report to our whistleblowing team that a firm or individual is involved in market abuse or other wrongdoing, email whistle@fca.org.uk (if link doesn't show then it's - whistle at fca-dot-org-dot-uk). Get to it before you consider accepting the situation as is.
Good point highlandsbull in your post at 9.16. What is "substantial" to smaller investors, even if united in a joint action, is possibly insignificant to major investors. Smaller investors need the leadership of a major investor or a"no win no fee" lawyer confident that they have a case against those listed in your post.. Alternatively an expert willing to lodge the relevant papers and complaint.
Whatever but unless shareholders with substantial stake in xel prepared urgently to coordinate around and submit a case, any case under a point of law, civil or criminal, either in the U.K. or bvi against the company, bod, auditors, bondholders, oga, whoever, this imo is heading for the rocks.
The other option of course oga where were they at xer/xel board meetings, funding/guarantee support, completely toothless imo other than disruptive re fdp.
23.01 ii post by JF123 chase the cfo/ceo and most importantly the auditors signing off on the 2015 accounts, as the xel liquidation option clearly in the optional game plan at that stage why was it not disclosed as a codicil by the execs to either shareholders or auditors and if disclosed to auditors not mentioned by them when they qualified and accepted the accounts then and bod assurances given re going concern. Yes going concern perhaps but by liquidation, surely material event
ah that word... reassured ...wonder where your side kick is lately legends & is he still re- reassured & why...he never did explain why he was so smitten with this ...brain dead ?
And you know this how? Is this the same source that gave us FDP by late summer 2015 or the source that said Richard Smith presented Rupert with a funding package that he turned down? or the source that had you reassured about your shareholding in Xcite as recently as August?
Blue-eyes- there were representatives from the bondholders at the AGM. I bet you couldn't spot them from the PI's.
Superb post stewartuk13 at 12.15 today. Nothing sinister in the removal of your links - you have to have posted a few times before links are allowed. I repeat those you provided:- Find your Member of Parliament http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/ Reporting issue to the Serious Crime Office https://www.sfo.gov.uk/contact-us/reporting-serious-fraud-bribery-corruption/ Self-regulation Because AIM is an unregulated market segment, it escapes most of the mandatory provisions contained in European Union directives – as implemented in the UK – and other rules applicable to companies listed in the LSE. AIM believes self-regulation is pivotal to AIM’s low regulatory burden: companies seeking an AIM listing are not subject to significant admission requirements; after admission is granted, firms must comply with ongoing obligations which are comparatively lower to the ones that govern the operation of larger exchanges; and certain corporate governance provisions are not mandatory for AIM companies. Therefore, AIM-listed companies are often subject to manipulation by institutional investors. AIM-listed companies usually are only required to adhere to the corporate governance requirements of their home jurisdiction, which, as a practical matter, vary widely.[5] However, the regulatory requirements are more onerous than for private companies and AIM listed plcs are required to prepare audited annual accounts under IFRS.[6] The Financial Conduct Authority seemed to direct me to a page focussed on insurance complaints and reporting issues to the organisation involved before an Ombudsman could be involved. Have the Financial Conduct Authority accepted a complaint and given a reference number to a grievance from a poster on this forum? If so it might be helpful if the contact address could be posted and perhaps the complaint number?