Rockhopper Share Price (RKH)

Security over the Award proceeds. Arguably the funder is junior to FIG in the pecking order. Sequential not pro-rata.

Patience

Had a reply from SM. I think Zinced came closest to answering but it's apparently a bit complex and involves a conflict. Here's his reply.

There is more complexity than this but at a high level we require FIG consent because the incoming funder wants security over the Award proceeds.  That security would then clash with the broader security enjoyed by FIG over all of our assets which came into being at the time of the tax settlement deed many years ago.

 

Aaaaargh, spell check, "has to" , not history

At risk of perpetuating this trail, maybe everyone's at least partly right! A funder's security might or would only be effective against amounts actually owed to them. Almost history be that rkh remain the name actually "on the docket" when funder pursues RoI. Rkh then still actually receives the proceeds from seizing and selling assets. How does funder then make sure its all passed on as agreed? Security presumably is only and exclusively for that.

At the same time the tax status of the proceeds from selling the award might also be receiving attention.

Chess, this is my last post on the matter as we seem to be repeating ourselves.

You keep talking about FIG having a say about how Rock 'DISPENCE' funds.

The monetisation of the OM award is about how Rockhopper 'RECIEVE' funds.

FIG having a veto on that seems odd !