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.
all doomed like ldp
once again we got into the honoured list of the top faller's on AIM at number six. - so much promise and how the mighty fall. The BOD really are a bunch of t055ers
So GKPs restructuring is complete...tomorrow GKP sees 21.9 billion new shares issued (yes you read that right) billion! If a yes goes through here we will be subject to a similar announcement at some point.....
Ability to burn through $450m has screwed the dynamic duo up also though, could have been £30m each up themselves so at least a degree of shared misery for the ineptness shown here.
Ashamed, he's not, he couldn't care less. He laughs at our posts and reeps the rewards of his deception. Years ago he would of faced the gallows, oh how I wish, as I for one would of bid on a front row seat of that spectacular event. Ps Bring back hanging!
I call no one wise until he has made the progress from the wisdom of knowledge to the wisdom of foolishness, in your case Cole I see NO case of foolishness, I BELIEVE, This has turned into a very skilful, calculated and deliberate fraud on shareholders, who relied enormously on the Company to relay true & accurate information, today's revelation might be just the tip of the iceberg... The average shareholder, many who were not people of your income, had spent their working life in order to achieve... the investment they poured into XEL..under your guidance Rupert you have decimated many,many lives....please ask your self the question I have posed at the bottom of the page & while asking it look into your mirror & answer truthfully...you have to live with it! The best that we can hope for in this life is that we shall not have sons and grandsons of whom we need to be ashamed. I wonder if Coles Grand parents are proud ?
Is cole not also the company secretary for the bvi company..
Thanks CC for the run down of Mem and arts and the unauthorised changes - It would appear that having been caught out or realised that have now amended what is in effect a key and significant action which was not approved by the Shareholders at the last AGM. Is it not strange that the section of concern and said to be an administrative error is so fundamental to protecting the position of the BOD - not of course that anyone could claim any wrongdoing was afoot ????
Nope.
Bonker back for another slice of the action....
Perhaps papers have been served or are known to be en route?
This section provides that a liquidator of an insolvent company may ask for an order from the courts making a director personally liable to contribute to the company's assets. The liability will arise where a director knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation and then failed to take every step with a view to minimising the potential loss to the company's creditors that he ought to have taken. I understand the above but does it make a difference if the loan is secured over an asset?
I don't know why they bother worrying about what we voted for since it appears that we don't matter anyway - apparently or so it seems to me.. According to the letter this is the situation although I have to say that I disagree with the comment. I may be wrong but I just don't see it that way " As you will be aware, as a matter of English law and BVI law, when a company approaches or is in the 'zone of insolvency', there is a significant shift in directors' duties and, when acting in accordance with their duties, including the duty to act in the best interests of the Company, the Directors must have regard to the interests of the Company's creditors so that their interests are given priority over those of the shareholders. The Directors are very aware of their duties to both the Company's shareholders and creditors alike having sought legal advice in this regard The bondholders have their own security as long as the company doesn't take on additional debt or try and carve up the asset over which they have security then the obligation must still remain with the company and the existing shareholders It's almost as if they are burying us before we are dead - decision made, dust off of the hands and move on I'm still completely baffled as to how the subject of large dilution went from "no point or what's the point" to being sold to us as a good idea It's these complete about turns that IMO have left investors feeling that at times things are said for the sake of convenience. They told us at the AGM in essence that it wasn't worthwhile to go for it so ................................
and it is just to confirm the BOD are incompetent on everything. Sooner they get told to FOXTROT OSCAR the better. They would be well suited to join that clown craze!!
The level of incompetence here is breath taking. Better double check all your numbers Rupert just in case you have a decimal point in the wrong place in the accounts.
Looks like they do read these BBs. Well Rupert - if you do then how about a little more transparancey? How did we find ourselves on this mess and surely you can do better than 98.5% dilution. As it stands I will be voting no...
Better late than never ? 13 October 2016 Xcite Energy Limited ("Xcite Energy" or the "Company") Re-filing of Articles of Association At the Company's Annual General Meeting ("AGM") on 27 July 2016, certain changes were approved by shareholders to the Company's Articles of Association ("Articles") as set out in the information circular that was sent to shareholders prior to the AGM. Subsequently, a revised, incorrect set of Articles was filed with the BVI Company Registry, which contained clauses that had not been approved by shareholders at the AGM. This was an administrative error and the Company has now filed the correct set of Articles as approved at the AGM with the BVI Company Registry, and which is also available on the Company's website. ENQUIRIES: Xcite Energy Limited +44 (0) 1483 549 063 Rupert Cole / Andrew Fairclough Liberum (Joint Broker and Nomad) +44 (0) 203 100 2222 Clayton Bush / Jamie Richards Morgan Stanley (Joint Broker) +44 (0) 207 425 8000 Andrew Foster This information is provided by RNS The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
'... should it have been RNS'd?.....remember 'Only listen to company news'
CCat - for once in agreement - that is shocking
The company has a paid team of lawyers working on whose behalf ?
Thanks. Surely rns worthy and vote ?
As best as anyone can tell, at the AGM shareholders were asked to vote on some amendments to the articles of association. The amended articles were posted on the Xcite website in August, but ADDITIONALLY included a section on takeovers (section 43 Takeover provisions) that no one voted on. The articles were again updated recently (7th october) where they removed the section 43 that wasn't voted on at the AGM and uploaded to the corporate website where they replaced the previous articles uploaded in August. Those are the facts. Was it done through incompetence or on purpose? Were the articles legally binding between august and october with the section 43? should it have been RNS'd?
Hi HB just catching up and noted your comments regarding the Articles of association had been recently changed - could you be kind enough to expand on what has happened on this and the relevance Thanks Jonjo
One might think one of the largest proven fields in the north sea should attract some attention, away from throwing money into speculative seismic.