RE: I was sent this by a colleague earlier this afternoon28 Feb 2026 08:55
GTJD - Good news that there will be no imminent auction of Eli due to the several winding-up cases currently being made against ELI by various creditors for unpaid debts. Going to auction with the existing outstanding debts would severely reduce the bid prices. I followed the Nigerian High Court references, but encountered a paywall when trying to access the court documents. At that point, I gave up since the auction was scheduled for next week and all would be revealed then.
The only source of income in this financial maze of income and debt appears to be an Eroton/SLE contract with Shell, under which Shell is to receive and pay for 32,000 barrels of oil per day, although it seems that, until today, Eroton has failed to produce a copy of the contract.
Eroton/SLE is facing significant debt, which is itself an understatement, with multiple claimants, including a dominant claimant, Guaranty Trust Bank plc of Nigeria (GT Bank).
The plot thickens when one considers that GT Bank apparently has an "All Assets Debenture" that originally secured a US$462,000,000 loan to Eroton.
The Debenture provides for a fixed charge over all Eroton’s plant and machinery, intellectual property, book debts, shares and dividends, goodwill and accounts, including its OML 18 Crude Oil Revenue Collection Account; in effect, Eroton owns nothing, which further complicates the receivership.
Thanks for the extensive link you posted from your lawyers https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewhc/comm/2026/296
A recommended read if anyone has the time, which illustrates the complexity of forcing any company into receivership, and we haven't even discussed San Leon and BW in the Irish courts.
I take the liberty of posting Mr Justice Butcher's conclusion below:
Bright Waters Energy Ltd and Eroton Exploration and Production
I have considered Eroton's arguments against a receivership order and found them unconvincing. It is now necessary to stand back and look at all the relevant circumstances in the round.
I am of the view that it is convenient to make a receivership order. The amount claimed by Brightwaters is substantial and considerably in excess of the probable costs of appointing receivers. There has been, and remains, a hindrance to the ordinary enforcement processes. I am satisfied that there is an asset over which receivers can be appointed, namely the sums due and which will become due from Shell. While there is no certainty that the receivership will achieve anything fruitful, there is at least a reasonable prospect that it will. I do not consider that the order proposed will prejudice third parties. Making the order will, however, be consistent with, and tend to promote the policy of English law that judgments of the court should be complied with and, if necessary, enforced.
Conclusion
For the reasons given, I will make a receivership order. I trust that the parties can agree on the terms of an order.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
