Member Info for Alibi

HUR had no debt and in fact had a huge pile of cash. Was sold out by a bunch of crooks on the board.

I received a corporate action notification from Charles Stanley, with a response required as to whether to take the DCUs or to take loan notes. The notice contained the following statement:

"Additional Information

If you wish to receive the loan notes, please note that they are not eligible to be held within an ISA. If you opt for this option, please first open an Investment Account online if you do not already have one open."

That reads to me as if the DCUs can be held within an ISA are there is no specific statement that they can't.

“Try not to call people liars, I'm a First Amendment type person but unfortunately live in England, Scotland is way way worse re freedom of speech, quite surprised that the fringe (which is great fun) has survived.”

Ironic that you talk about lying, Nigel H, when you come out with that whopper. I’m Scottish and have unlimited freedom of speech. I suspect the Nigel in your nom de plume says a lot about you! :)

Seems still to be some confusion about this. Whilst I have no idea the status of the DCUs, it does seem to be the case that the "special dividend" being paid in the next couple of months is not subject to tax if shares are held within an ISA (or I think within a SIPP). I don't have any great expectations that the DCU will end up producing any further income as the whole deal looks like a rip off being perpetrated but we can maybe live in hope - the tax status of any income from the DCUs will presumably be clarified in due course, although as it is said the DCUs can't be held within an ISA, any resultant income would probably be taxed - maybe not the case in a SIPP although presumably would be taxed when money is taken out the SIPP. My main concern was with a huge lump sum appearing shortly and it not being free of tax as I hold my shares 100% within an ISA, so seems to be good news on that side at least. I think.

Thanks for that - however some on here have said that the special dividend can't be paid into an ISA but has to go into another account. There seems to be a degree of uncertainty about the whole thing. I'll check with my accountant on Tuesday to seek his advice. If the ISA is OK for a dividend payment, then I'll just keep it there, but frankly a full simple 12.5p bid would have been a lot simpler.

Regarding this question of shares in an ISA vs shares in a SIPP, am I right in thinking that shares currently in an ISA are probably going to be subject to income tax on the dividend payment? Also that if held in a SIPP, they are not taxed. That being the case, would it make sense for me to transfer my 900,000 shares, currently held in my ISA with Charles Stanley, into my SIPP? I assume this is possible and will be emailing my SIPP provider to see how to go about it, but can anyone confirm if that is the best strategy here? Gives me at least the flexibility to decide when tax will be paid and thus avoid higher rate tax to some extent.

I am with Charles Stanley and have instructed them to vote No on behalf. Hold just under 900,000 shares in my ISA.

900,000 shares, would vote against this dodgy deal. What’s to stop Prax manipulating things to avoid showing any profits before 2027?

The ferries aren't being built in Greenock. Fergusons is in Port Glasgow.

Quote: "Last survation poll (3rd January 2023)asked the question 'if there was a referendum and a vote to either 'leave' or 'remain' part of the UK' The result was only 8% would choose 'leave' as their option. Not exactly a majority is it. In 2014 the Scottish referendum took place in full knowledge of the future referendum to leave the EU, as it was included as part of the agreement when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed the coalition government. Scotland as well as every other registered voter in all countries that make up the union voted for Brexit in the full knowledge that each person carried one vote in relation to the question and they voted their intention as an individual not as a member of a party, organisation or by state within the union. 32% of Scotland voted to leave the EU by country however 51% voted to leave by individual which was the agreed terms by all governments and parties that made up the Union. 55% of Scotland chose to stay part of the UK in the Scottish referendum and it was agreed that the referendum would be once in a generation. Not only was this term used in the rhetoric but was included in the debates and text when legislation was produced to allow the referendum to take place. A generation isn't 8 years. The SNP took it to the High Court to try to get permission to hold a referendum and it was refused. The courts jurisdiction is outside of government and government must abide by the ruling of the court. The SNP agreed prior to convening of the court case that it would abide by the decision of the court and it lost. Therefore why is the SNP not accepting the decision of the court and still looking for a route to hold a referendum?" Unquote.

There are so may factual errors in there that you could be a journalist working for the Express or Daily Mail. Let me pick out just one, the "once in a generation" claim. That was said only as a figure of speech, much like that turd johnson's "die in a ditch". BTWE the NI GFA sets an interval of 7 years between referenda there, so in political terms that seems a reasonable interval.

Can’t see much wrong with this. Not quite sorted the blockage but we are now an oil producer. This should be a lot higher.

NigelHaemoglobin: the company is not in poor shape. It's currently printing money and the balance sheet is pretty impressive with no debt and a huge pile of cash. I'd argue that the BoD is a weakness and I don't trust some of the directors as far as I could throw them, but nevertheless it is the case that if the BoD so decided, there is a route forward that could unlock even more oil. they have decided not to pursue that route but that doesn't mean that they couldn't if they were persuaded to change their minds - might mean a bit of risk but it is still a feasible option.

Aye, they told India the same sort of thing while syphoning off about £150 trillion over the colonial era. See also Singapore, Malta, any former colony. Funny how none of them ever ask to be ruled from London again. The GERS figures are a fabrication based on "estimates".

Basically London intending to use Scotland’s resources to bail England out again. As Haggis Trap says, the GERS figures, which were designed specifically to make Scotland look poor, are going to be spectacular. Scotland is actually more than self sufficient in renewable energy much of the time, so why are we now paying the highest electricity charges in Europe? The indyref2 campaign writes itself.

Thanks, DC.

I have most of my shares held in an ISA. If hUR is gradually de-financed by means of regular dividends as proposed, can the dividends be paid into the iSA or are they taxed as income? The reason i put the shares in an iSA to start with was to avoid CGT (also bed and ISAing them from my trading account generated tax losses that can be offset against any CGT gains elsewhere). It occurred to me that if cash is paid out as dividends, I could end up having to pay tax on the divi income which rather defeats the purpose of my strategy. Anyone who knows anything about care to comment?

Where does it say CA were prepared to take 7.7p? Initially I read the RNS as meaning this was a takeover offer by CA, but on reading it again, it probably isn’t. Let’s say it was from a third party - that would I think mean CA’s interests and ours were still aligned. Clarity on whether CA are the bidder would be welcome but I don’t know if that can be deduced from this RNS. I assume their are regulation covering this sort of thing.

If HUM will own 51% of Pasofino, a majority stake, surely the only people able to acquire full ownership would be HUM themselves? Or am I misunderstanding this?

Earlier today it was mentioned that a rig costs £500k a day (or maybe it's $, but pretty much the same thing). however is it not the case that with tax relief of 91%, the real cost is only £45k per day? If so, that changes the economics significantly.

The point is that the 91% tax relief is only of benefit if they invest, for example drilling. the net cost of investment is 9% of what it costs which is a lot less than doing it when the tax relief is no longer there. I get the point about not going ahead if they're in some sort of merger or takeover talks already, but do the BoD not have a duty to maximise shreholder value (and yes, I am fully aware they're crooks who have previously attempted to shaft us).