Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. Watch the video here.
Just a final point from me, which I nearly posted a few days ago, but then had second thoughts, as I really have to be careful what I say in this regard…but there are some very intelligent posters on here, who do a lot of research, so I’ll just paint a very brief outline, without going in to much detail. Well firstly, a few relevant lines from the HUR document:
“The Plan Company is not aware of any current investigations or litigation relating to or any adverse findings against the Plan Company or any of its directors…on 10 May 2021 the FCA's Market Oversight Department requested that the Plan Company provide information in relation to historic announcements made by the Plan Company and recent developments in relation to the proposed restructuring…there is a risk that the FCA could seek to object to the Restructuring Plan…if any investigations or litigation are started and substantiated in the future against the Plan Company, (eg its directors)…this could result in a finding of liability and requirement to pay redress or criminal or civil penalties, including substantial monetary fines, against …its directors, as such, the Plan Company could become involved in litigation from (3rd) parties…there can be no assurance that the Plan Company would prevail in any such litigation”
ALL the BoD at HUR are at great risk at the moment, with regard to their own personal assets, as not only in my opinion, but in the opinion of legal experts, they are very likely in breach of CA2006. Directors are personally liable for any breach of Company Law, which as the passage above indicates, can be classed as a criminal offence, where for example they deliberately breach their general duties. As the BoD have all signed up to this court hearing/lockup agreement, then even if they resign/retire in the next year or so, it will not protect any of their personal assets from the threat of litigation. Should shareholders wish to pursue this, then there is no rush to do so, indeed leaving it a little while could be most advantageous in future court proceedings. I am sure one or two of the big personalities of this bulletin board, who as I’ve said are clearly intelligent people, could set up a wider group who wish to participate in a ‘Group Litigation Order’, against the BoD, in the High Court. With all the evidence out there, the chances of participants in such an action retrieving some of their losses from BoD personal assets, I believe are significant.
If I was a BoD member at HUR, I would be organising an urgent online meeting asap, to discuss withdrawing from both the Court Hearing and subsequent threat of insolvency, and urgently organising an AGM, to try and recover some element of a relationship with the company shareholders. To not do so and just plough on regardless, is a big personal risk in my opinion, as I do believe a shock is coming to them in the coming months, if they fail to act right now, regarding a change of direction/forward planning.
I’m not going to involve myself with ongoing comment regarding some of the drivel written on here, but suffice to say that whilst I am currently on maternity leave, my day job is a chartered accountant, so I am more than capable of reading accounts and doing complex calculations. There is such a thing as ‘creative accounting’ and if it’s done correctly, it is not illegal – if there was to be a AGM, then I have several questions that I would raise with the HUR BoD to enlighten myself as to where some of the cash has gone. There are some complex examples/questions here, but a simple one would be: net free cash at 30/11/2020 was down from June 2020, at $87M; then with POO rising from the autumn, in one month NFC increased by $19M, to give an end of year balance of $106M. POO then accelerated significantly over Q1 and yet NFC was only shown as $127M, some 3 offloads later at 31/3/2021. Did the BoD take out $20M+ for future decommissioning costs perhaps? I am sure they wanted NFC as low as possible before the court hearing, of course. There is also some creative work around the capex/operating cost/net profit imho, but without an AGM, none of that can be challenged, what with zero BoD (2-way) communication with shareholders over the last 9 months. So those who really believe that there is any problem at all, in HUR meeting its obligations to bondholders at the end of July next year, if POO simply maintains in the 60’s, are simply delusional. There is a game being played out here and in a weeks’ time we will all know the outcome.
Just another quick thought before I head out to the shops and school-run – Clearly a CPR is not a document that any shareholder should ever rely on. The latest HUR one was written by ERCE with one specific aim in mind, to deliver a specific outcome from next Friday’s High Court hearing ie the Court approving the disgraceful HUR ‘lock-up agreement’. To mitigate themselves from any future litigation, ERCE have included numerous ‘disclaimers’, regarding both the missing and incorrect data, that they have used to compile their report. For example: ‘ERCE reserves the right to review all calculations referred to/included in the CPR and to revise estimates in light of erroneous data supplied, or information existing but not made available, which becomes known, subsequent to the preparation of the CPR’. Clearly, a far more positive plan will follow if the Court hearing supports the HUR BoD in gifting the company to b/holders, and will include a whole raft of things such as: OGA support/utilising the $22M of subsea kit to tie in Lincoln/oil recovery from the sandstone/partnership/farm-out arrangements/significant rise in financial projections based on the rising oil price etc. Hopefully though, the MIU/FCA can put a stop to all this, including the threatened forced insolvency, if our CEO doesn’t get his way.
HUR currently has $140M free cash and assets they could easily sell to boost that sum, such as the $22M of kit for Lincoln, so with oil remaining circa $70 for the rest of the year, the bondholders could be paid back well before Easter 2022. The BoD masterplan never anticipated POO rising to current levels so soon, so they are under a lot of pressure and really do need to act fast, to get it all done and dusted, as their projected figures just don’t make any sense now – hence all the CPR scaremongering. The HUR CEO has of course, connections to China, and so who knows what was behind his appointment? He started with HUR in August last year and then about a month later became CEO, and then a couple of days later Kerogen directors resigned and surprise, surprise, Kerogen didn’t replace them. Delivering on the ‘masterplan’ was key and they needed to ensure, for obvious reasons, that they weren’t seen to be part of the ongoing decision-making process, as this crazy ‘play’ unfolded. There than followed, lies/game-playing etc, with the BoD doing pathetic stuff to try and manipulate the ‘data’. As many people on here have noted, the BoD have literally done nothing to justify their appalling levels of income over the last 9 months. In addition to all that, the proposed sell out of the company for $50M and then $26M/yearly payments to the bondholders to extend the existing loan arrangement, has to be one of the most unnecessary/worst financial deals ever. My 5 year old could do better.
Hi Rosie...I'm just off out the door in a minute, to get my little girl from school and after that off to her grandma's for tea..so if someone else is already a member there, it'd be great if they could re-post on the other board. Many thanks.
The 3 key people to contact at miu are : Rashmine.Sethi ; Sarah.Partridge-Smith ; Toby.Hall ; they are involved with the HUR case, but if you write to the MIU mailbox, I'm sure it will get passed onto the investigating team.
Hi there RF...the first bit is as I've typed it and the last bit is as per your link ie fca dot org dot uk. Very strange that lse is preventing the full link being posted, clearly they want to for some reason prevent messages to this key dept for market oversight. The miu have recently written out to HUR bod with numerous issues, but my fear is that the hur bod delay a reply. Clearly, the more who write into them the better imo.
fca.org.uk
Sorry, forgot to add - for anyone who wishes to feed into their HUR review, the direct email address of the 'Market Integrity Unit' at the FCA is: MIUMailbox@fca.org.uk
It appears to me, that the best outcome for all of us shareholders, is to have an adjournment to the proposed court hearing of 21/5...and if the judge would allow the case to be adjourned 'sine die', then even better. The BoD are clearly desperate for this to be resolved a week tomorrow, as the 'Step Regulations/Covid Roadmap' that has allowed UK companies to have closed meetings (with no s/h's present), is due to end on 21/6 - and after that date HUR shareholders can call an EGM and remove this disgraceful BoD. These covid restrictions, have allowed this BoD to pursue their own agenda, without any possible involvement of s/holders - without this terrible pandemic, such a situation would never have arisen. To try and ensure s/h's 'play ball', and don't react to losing 95% of the company, Maris has issued an appalling threat ie if the court doesn't approve the BoD request on 21/5, then he will quickly run down offshore operations and declare the company insolvent, again all before s/h's can react from 21/6. I understand the MIU are currently investigating Hur BoD actions and that John Glen, the City Minister is also included in the review. The problem is time though - will they have concluded their investigations in time to influence the 21/5...if not, then THEY should call for a court adjournment imho - and they should also prevent the forced insolvency of the company by our disgraceful CEO.