Member Info for Ahris

Just seen Kamran Sattar who requisitioned Love Hemp 12 months ago has saved love hemp out of administration and everything he said in that requisition had come true! Some had said his love hemp
Requisition failed but looks like he has won! Let’s hope Reabold doesn’t go the same way and if sattar comes back for Reabold that the shareholders are a part of it. Reabold is better with Sattar at the helm!

https://www.cityam.com/love-hemp-dragged-out-of-weeds/

It is my understanding that the board lied to us and that after speaking to the registrar the 120,000,000 shares at 1p £1,200,000 shares were issued to Nucleus Capital Ltd a company that has Philip Small as a director and who was also the managing director of Love Hemp Ltd does this mean Philip Small and Andrew Male tried to defraud us love hemp shareholders of £1,200,000 ? And still has those shares yet never paid for them ? Looks like the FCA and Aquis should come knocking on Philip Smalls door shortly.

@wiltshireman

You may find the following links will help you

https://www.reaboldrequisition.com/wp-content/uploads/Responses-of-the-Requisitioning-Shareholders-v2.pdf

All the info can be found on the website.

https://www.reaboldrequisition.com

https://www.reaboldrequisition.com/wp-content/uploads/reabold-resources-plc-requisitioning-Shareholders-Group-1.pdf

Fellow shareholders are encouraged to review the Glass Lewis report by contacting Glass Lewis to obtain a copy (for contact details, see: https://www.glasslewis.com/contact-us/) and visit the Reabold Requisitioning Shareholders website https://www.reaboldrequisition.com before voting.
We recommend that all shareholders VOTE FOR ALL THE RESOLUTIONS at the general meeting. Contact
Requisitioning Shareholders

Reabold Resources plc Requisitioning Shareholders Group ("Requisitioning Shareholders")
Proxy Advisors' Recommendations
The Requisitioning Shareholders note the announcement released earlier today by the board of Reabold Resources plc (the "Company"), referring to ISS's view that shareholders ought to vote against the resolutions to be proposed at the general meeting of the Company to be held on 17 November, which would imply that shareholders must continue to suffer the status quo of a failing board responsible for poor management oversight and decision-making, corporate governance failings, conflicts of interest and the continuing destruction of shareholder value.
We are disappointed with ISS's view, particularly as it fails to take into the account the directorship tenure of Messrs Edelman and Samaha. Each of them has been on the Board for 10 years; a period which has seen significant destruction of shareholder of value. The UK Corporate Governance Code and the QCA Corporate Governance Code, the latter of which the Company purportedly complies with, state that the chair should not remain in post beyond nine years from the date of their first appointment to the board. Furthermore, if they do remain, which is not advised, they should be subject to annual re- election. No mention of this corporate governance failing was disclosed in the Company's annual report for the financial year ended 31 December 2021. Notwithstanding the approval of shareholders was sought to re-elect Messrs Edelman and Samaha as directors at the 2022 annual general meeting of the Company, the incumbent board chose instead to state such re-elections were as a result of Messrs Edelman and Samaha retiring by rotation pursuant to the Company's articles of association.
Notwithstanding this, we note the more informed insight offered by Glass Lewis which the board saw fit not to refer to in its earlier announcement. We anticipate this is because Glass Lewis has stated that we have presented a sufficiently compelling case that change is warranted at the Company and that reconstituting the board could likely lead to a more favourable outcome for shareholders, which confirms our view that the Company has performed poorly from a total shareholder return perspective, destroyed significant shareholder value and underperformed relative to benchmark indices over the three-year, five-year and 10-year periods prior to our requisition being served.
It is worth noting that neither the ISS nor the Glass Lewis reports were prepared based on the detailed responses we provided in reply to the notice of general meeting published by the Company on 31 October, as the responses were only made public after the reports had been finalised. A copy of our detailed responses can be found on the website that we have established specifically for the requisition: https://www.reaboldrequisition.com/wp-content/uploads/Responses-of-the-Requisitioning- Shareholders-v2.pdf

Please see link for RNS released by requisition shareholders

https://www.sharesmagazine.co.uk/news/market/LSE20221108105505_4572226/proxy-advisors-recommendations

Vote for change!

From looking on here they must of done badly especially as Mr Heid has come full of support

Did anyone ask why;

1. Stephen Williams drives Lamborghini and why Sachin has a Ferrari? Also if these cars are company expenses?

2. Did they say anything about the extortion of salaries ?

3. Did anyone ask about if any of their family members are on the payroll ? And if so why ?

4. Did anyone ask if how many personal travel trips have board members taken? And how many holidays Stephen and Sachin they have had ? Surely they would of been very expensive luxury holidays! At the expense of shareholder.

5. Did anyone ask about the Glass Lewis report in favour of the requisitioning team and stating that the current management have ruined shareholder value as well as not acted in the best interests of shareholders, with questionable compensation packages( pretty damaging I would say)

I also note that the requisition team have made updates to the website, and made announcements under

www.reaboldrequisition.com

Peace have a great evening vote these jokers out I am certainly sick of the lies!

Glass Lewis report stated

“CONCLUSION
Overall, we find that Pershing has made a compelling argument that change to the Reabold board is warranted and that doing so would likely lead to a more favorable outcome for all Reabold shareholders. The Company has performed poorly from a total shareholder return perspective, destroyed significant shareholder value and underperformed relative to benchmark indices over the three-year, five-year and 10-year periods prior to announcement of the Dissident’s requisition. These periods coincide with the tenures of the longest standing Reabold directors and with the tenures of the Company’s co-CEOs. While the incumbent leadership team appears to be making progress on its strategy to develop and monetize upstream assets, and recently secured the sale of Corallian for a net gain, these efforts have not translated to favorable shareholder returns, in our view. In addition to lackluster performance, we believe there are notable governance deficiencies at Reabold, including poor oversight of management, questionable compensation practices and a lack of sufficient industry operating experience on the board.”

I find it disingenuous that the company spent share holder money today but did not mention the Glass Lewis report as it is confirming what Pershing is saying, but then again Mr Heid oil is could you please confirm if you are being paid in anyway shape or form by UJO?

Glass Lewis report stated

“CONCLUSION
Overall, we find that Pershing has made a compelling argument that change to the Reabold board is warranted and that doing so would likely lead to a more favorable outcome for all Reabold shareholders. The Company has performed poorly from a total shareholder return perspective, destroyed significant shareholder value and underperformed relative to benchmark indices over the three-year, five-year and 10-year periods prior to announcement of the Dissident’s requisition. These periods coincide with the tenures of the longest standing Reabold directors and with the tenures of the Company’s co-CEOs. While the incumbent leadership team appears to be making progress on its strategy to develop and monetize upstream assets, and recently secured the sale of Corallian for a net gain, these efforts have not translated to favorable shareholder returns, in our view. In addition to lackluster performance, we believe there are notable governance deficiencies at Reabold, including poor oversight of management, questionable compensation practices and a lack of sufficient industry operating experience on the board.”

The company failed to point out that Glass Lewis who are similar to ISS actually found some of the boards proposals good and recommended voting for them they went on to say “Pershing make some compelling arguments and that they recommend backing them”, both reports have not even taken into account the requisitioning shareholders responses link attended.
https://www.reaboldrequisition.com/wp-content/uploads/Responses-of-the-Requisitioning-Shareholders-v2.pdf

Hi NVG

In the presentation they have updated to say they will do what you have said;

“keep control of the asset whilst working closely with proven track record partners to try and make sure of a successful drill - therefore maximising the value”

This have also said so in announcements page in www.reaboldrequisition.com

“Amir Khan the British Superstar boxer joins the fight for Reabold”

https://www.reaboldrequisition.com/announcements/

Really important,I have just had a look at the share register the following fund managers have the following positions and Stephen and Sachin said publicly they are very confident that they will support them?

1.Premier Miton 9.9%
https://www.premiermiton.com

2.Fidelity who have 5.06% and previously have voted against management

3.Ruffer who have 6.27%
www.ruffer.co.Uk

4.Chelverton Asset Management 5.17%
https://www.chelvertonam.com

5.Janus Henderson 2.13%
www.janushenderson.com

So it would be interesting to see how these fund managers who manage our pensions and other investments for a lot of investors will vote, surely they cannot support 750k between two CEOs when Drs who save lives can’t even pay their electricity bills - this could be a key moment in the world of investing to see who these fund managers back. I suspect most will not vote because they don’t want to look bad by supporting the current directors! But then Stephen & Sachin are previous fund managers so will be very interesting to see and if they do vote in favour of previous fund managers and if they do we all need to rally and ask serious questions of how they can support the current management!

The requisition share holders have put out a big response which holds the current management very badly! https://www.reaboldrequisition.com/wp-content/uploads/Responses-of-the-Requisitioning-Shareholders-v2.pdf

@jackdiamonds

Personally if Sattar was involved in negotiations for Victory I suspect we would of got £100m and interest in the asset vote for SATTAR!

Anyone see this update ok the website ?
www.reaboldrequisition.com/announcements/

Clairfication regarding West Newton

West Newton

In response to our statement that we are disappointed with the lacklustre results of UK onshore licence PEDL 183 (West Newton), the incumbent directors have provided a single paragraph response. A single paragraph devoted to what the incumbent directors would have shareholders believe is a flagship asset of the Company. The incumbent directors state it is their opinion that due to the substantial progress at West Newton since the Company invested, with two wells drilled and tested and with a third well due in 2023, our criticism is not factually correct. Where, one wonders, is the belief of the incumbent directors rather than simply their opinions.

We assume the lack of belief is due to the incumbent directors’ previous approach to drilling, which resulted in: “Completion fluids were injected into the formation at a rate constrained by the pumps on site at 5.7 barrels per minute (8,208 barrels per day). However, the Kirkham Abbey reservoir appears to be sensitive to the drilling and completion fluids. We see clear signs of reservoir damage in near wellbore areas”. The Company went on to say: “The B-1Z well will therefore be suspended” (RNS dated 31 August 2021).

The previous drilling attempt at West Newton was disastrous, resulting in the well being damaged. We believe the incumbent directors rushed into the drilling without the required preparation and diligence, to distract from their failed approach for Deltic Energy. To date, there has been no accountability relating to this failure. Based on the Company’s current conceptual development plan, we believe the Company lacks the required capital and in-house expertise to successfully implement the plan of the incumbent directors. Our desire is not to change track for West Newton but to de-risk the incumbent directors’ plan and ensure the Company takes into account all the technical expertise already available with the project partners. Removing the incumbent directors will not delay West Newton but will further enhance the chance of success by reducing the co-CEOs’ excessive costs and replacing them by a single more technically advanced and adept CEO with the experience and knowledge to make a far more informed decision. We are keen to forge a close working relationship with the Company’s partners.

Key Action 3

Realising value from existing projects in the next 6 to 12 months

West Newton

As outlined on slide 6, the existing Board’s previous drilling attempt at West Newton was disastrous, resulting in the damaging of the well. It is our understanding that the current Board rushed into this drilling attempt without the required preparation and diligence, to distract from their failed approach for Deltic Energy Plc and there has been no accountability from the Board regarding this failure;
It is the Proposed Board’s plan to position the West Newton assets for a
farm out in the next 6 to 12 months. It is our opinion that based on Reabold’s conceptual development plan, Reabold lacks the required capital and in-house expertise to successfully implement their plan. As such, we would rapidly look to bring in an experienced farm out partner who would significantly de-risk the asset and help Reabold realise significant value for the asset.
Corallian Assets (North Sea Licenses)

Our plan is to commence the farm out of the recently acquired Corallian assets, completing similar deals to the Daybreak deal, where revenue and shareholder value can be rapidly realised;
We see significant potential with these licenses however we do not have sufficient confidence that the Board can realise this value given there recent track record of executing sub-optimal deals for Reabold’s shareholders.
Danube

Reabold has been indecisive in their approach in Romania and there is no clear visibility or plan to achieve a return on the £5m invested in Danube Petroleum to date;
The Proposed Board would immediately start a process to sell or farm out the Danube asset to ensure Reabold’s shareholders receive some return from this investment.

Here is the link to the presentation:

https://www.reaboldrequisition.com/wp-content/uploads/Reabold-Requisition-Deck-v5.1.pdf

Portillion Capital has been a key strategic driver of the business
Reabold Requisitioning Shareholders
? Since 2020, Kamran and Portillion Capital have pushed the Reabold board to capitalise on a number of attractive opportunities to complete favourable deals;
? July 2020, Portillion Capital presented the West Newton opportunity to Reabold which helped Reabold secure and increase its holding in West Newton (RNS 29 July 2020);
? January 2021, Portillion Capital corner-stoned and underwrote the January 2021 placing of £7.5m. The existing Board had initially proposed that the raise be completed at a significant discount to market but Portillion Capital stepped in to avoid dilution of all shareholders and ensured it was completed at a premium to the then market price of 0.55p (RNS 28 January 2021);
? February/March/April 2021, to avoid the binary risk and reliance on West Newton, Kamran encouraged Reabold to acquire £1m of CLNs in Corallian Energy (RNS dated 22 February 2021), and subsequently led a group of strategic investors who acquired a portion of Reabold’s CLNs in Corallian Energy for £500k (RNS dated 3 March 2021). Subsequently, Kamran encouraged Reabold to increase their stake in Corallian Energy to 49.99% in April 2021. This provided Corallian Energy with enough cash to complete its CPR and progress the Victory asset to a point of sale/FDP (RNS dated 27 April 2021);
? Q3 2021, Reabold’s share price was crashing as several fund managers were liquidating their positions. Portillion Capital encouraged the co- CEOs to monetise their existing assets by launching a review of Corallian Energy and extracting value from California. An introduction to Hannam & Partners was made to start the sale process for Victory (RNS 20 October 2021);
? Portillion Capital helped fund Daybreak Oil and Gas, Inc.’s transaction in California. Daybreak had significant debt liabilities which Portillion and Reabold agreed to address via an Equity Exchange Agreement. This required Daybreak to raise $2.5m and ensure that all liabilities were settled before the conclusion of the transaction and Portillion’s final investment. Kamran had to personally fund a significant proportion of the transaction to ensure it went ahead, This transaction allowed Reabold to be a partner in a larger US listed and US focused oil & gas producing entity, and with Daybreak’s management team, they were in a better position to increase production, increase revenue and create value for Reabold’s shareholders (RNS 21 October 2021).