Member Info for Blue-Eyes

The thing is that people on this BB have spoken to and met the cat either at AGM's or meet up's. I'm not sure that anyone has met Legends And btw that bit about SK was utter piffle.

09.38 Have similar thoughts Less risky for the BH's then having to spin out shares and might even be worth a bit of a haircut to them

In addition NO petition the one concerning the suspension of the license goes hand in hand, if we stand a chance to achieve a better D4E deal: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/cancellation-of-xcite-energy-limited-and-xcite So Bentley goes for sale in a very questionable manner ? Let RC and the BHs go for it BUT with the license frozen! In parallel with all the worthwhile initiatives currently undertaken, the freezing/license suspension petition and a subsequent letter to OGA, could potentially give current shareholders some strong negotiation card: In the letter to the regulator we can ask for the license to be reinstated once we either have in place: 1 .A Debt-for-Equity deal acceptable to all ensuring the continuity of the license and continuation of the company. AND / OR 2. A proper receivership process under which the full value of the field would be much more likely to be realised.

I'm sure it IS better for the BH's but what is leaves shareholders is pretty much worthless. It potentially allows them to spin the shares back out into the market and the BoD to repair their position with a share consolidation and issue of options down the line This to me is akin to the Spanish land grab but with the added insult of rather than seeing the property razed to the ground you get to walk past it on a daily basis knowing that the local mayor who oversaw the removal of it from your ownership bought it for a pittance and is very much enjoying living in it and boasting to his friends about his luxurious lifestyle. The point that some people fail to realise is that having been left with a pittance in terms of what they invested a fair proportion of shareholders would rather lose that pittance altogether rather than see the company carry on with the present management in place drawing the salaries they do whilst talking about "enhancing shareholder value". With their own shares forever worth only pennies there just is no point in voting anything other than No - no matter what the end result is. Who knows is might go the other way It reminds me of a good old saying in that you might as well be shot as a fox for the whole coop rather than one chicken

feeling of the Private Investors in Xcite and the reality of failing to agree a mutually beneficial way forward. We represent a significant number of individuals with a shareholding of many millions. We look forward to working with you and agreeing a successful outcome for both of us and other interested stakeholders. Yours faithfully 296 Concerned Shareholders Please respond to this email address

Dear Sirs i refer you to the attached petition, started on Monday 17th October 2016 and being in operation for 48 hours, has now reached 296 signatures at 3.25 pm on Wednesday 19th October 2016. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/xcite The contents of the petition are self explanatory and a pdf copy can be provided. This shows the Private Shareholders absolute rejection of the proposals contained within your RNS of the 27th September 2016. With a separate totalling and register of Private Investors holdings, we are now confident that we have sufficient shareholder support to vote down your proposals. The strength of feeling is such that this will apply to any proposed resolution which leaves the Private Shareholders with minimal residual equity. In an attempt to prevent the calling of an EGM to vote on any such resolution, we propose that a meeting is held between 2 or 3 substantial shareholders, with a financial background, to meet and discuss a more proportionate solution for the way forward. There would be no guarantee that said meeting would provide a solution, but we think it prudent that this option should be given serious consideration. I would not personally be involved in said negotiations, but am willing to provide the contact for the necessary people to attend and discuss matters on behalf of, and with the consent of, our Group. The following paragraph is specifically for Pareto Securities and your Clients. It has become absolutely clear to our Group, that the current Board of Directors no longer have the support or the confidence of the Private Investors of Xcite. The attached petition bears witness to that. We have therefore taken the unusual step of contacting you directly, with a view to taking the Company forward in a way that is mutually beneficial to both your Clients and the Private Shareholders. Please accept this request in that spirit. The consequences of not agreeing an acceptable way forward are dire. As noted, the Private Shareholders Group will vote down any proposal which leaves them with minimal residual equity. We are now absolutely confident of that. The Company have stated in their RNS of 27th September, that such an action would result in "enforcement action" from you/ your Clients. In all of these discussions we are mindful of the OGA in the UK and the Department of Energy Secretary of State. If Xcite cannot prove that it has a viable financial future, the Bentley Licence can be revoked. If Xcite do not hold the Licence, Xcite Energy is relatively worthless, meaning that the Private Investors lose everything (pretty much the position we face with the current proposals), also the Bondholders would be in the same position losing $135 million plus. There would be nothing to salvage from Receivership or Liquidation. These are statements of fact. We ask you to review the foregoing, the strength of feeling of

That's where I'm at too. I'm more disturbed that the bullying letter revealed that they've had one eye on this situation for over a year. So taking all of that into account that and the other comment about bondholders interests taking priority over our is what they are now saying about the dilution being the best option being really being said in our best interests After all we've been told (as I understand it) in black and white that essentially they first and foremost act for someone else. I see the Warwick comments - they are a HF Warwick European Distressed & Special Situations Credit Fund Inc is a hedge fund launched and managed by Warwick Capital Partners. Warwick European Distressed & Special Situations Credit Fund Inc is domiciled in Cayman Islands. BH's could be any of their ilk

That's assuming they go I believe they will be trying to stay I also believe that the BH's are HF's and I also believe that they won't be planning to stick around. Having HF's as BH's IF that's their intention is probably the ideal scenario. The BH's enable them (with the WC injection) to keep going, spin out some positive sounding RNS's without actually saying much whilst they do the HF thing with the book and smartly exit stage left. Providing they can get the licence renewed they essentially end up with what they had before. 100% of the asset, well paid jobs and a powerless PI base the only annoyance is the number of shares in issue. Thus you carry out the other AIM stalwart of the consequences of alleged poor leadership and carry out a whopping share consolidation. Then once that is done you revert to another favourite and award yourself a swathe of options and Hey Presto everything is back to normal - just got to ignore the carcases of old long term holders lying around but sprinkle a bit of lime around and no one will notice the smell.

This section provides that a liquidator of an insolvent company may ask for an order from the courts making a director personally liable to contribute to the company's assets. The liability will arise where a director knew or ought to have concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that the company would avoid going into insolvent liquidation and then failed to take every step with a view to minimising the potential loss to the company's creditors that he ought to have taken. I understand the above but does it make a difference if the loan is secured over an asset?

I don't know why they bother worrying about what we voted for since it appears that we don't matter anyway - apparently or so it seems to me.. According to the letter this is the situation although I have to say that I disagree with the comment. I may be wrong but I just don't see it that way " As you will be aware, as a matter of English law and BVI law, when a company approaches or is in the 'zone of insolvency', there is a significant shift in directors' duties and, when acting in accordance with their duties, including the duty to act in the best interests of the Company, the Directors must have regard to the interests of the Company's creditors so that their interests are given priority over those of the shareholders. The Directors are very aware of their duties to both the Company's shareholders and creditors alike having sought legal advice in this regard The bondholders have their own security as long as the company doesn't take on additional debt or try and carve up the asset over which they have security then the obligation must still remain with the company and the existing shareholders It's almost as if they are burying us before we are dead - decision made, dust off of the hands and move on I'm still completely baffled as to how the subject of large dilution went from "no point or what's the point" to being sold to us as a good idea It's these complete about turns that IMO have left investors feeling that at times things are said for the sake of convenience. They told us at the AGM in essence that it wasn't worthwhile to go for it so ................................

Quite agree I have zero respect for people that behave like that and as for using company funds to muzzle shareholders whilst ignoring emails and leaving the answerphone on is beyond belief. The nail in the coffin for me was that "At the outset, we would note that the Directors have sought legal advice from this Firm and from reputable counsel in the British Virgin Islands (the "BVI") for over one year in relation to corporate restructuring, insolvency and directors' fiduciary duties issues and they have also taken financial advice from reputable external advisers throughout the process" So when that article about Xcite's financial woes came out two days (15/3/2016) after the Danny Fortson one (that was rubbished incidentally) stating "Sub $50 oil forced both Ceona and Iona into administration. Enquest and Xcite Energy have both drafted in debt experts. It seems as though we were the only people that didn't know but of course we had been told to only listen to the company and they were saying nothing to us about any of this at that time The last RNS we had had on 18/2 reiterated the expectation that the bonds were going to be paid off. Of course unbeknownst to us were we already in the "zone of insolvency" therefore "the Directors must have regard to the interests of the Company's creditors so that their interests are given priority over those of the shareholders" I would also like to know what happened to "the rig" and also why the minimum equity dilution talked about at the AGM that left attending shareholders mollified turned into maximum + 10m. I understand AF came across very confidently - how do you do that when you have been involved in discussions as per above? How did we go from them saying that massive dilution would be pointless to it being a great idea?

I guess we have to assume it's 14

I'm just trying to work out which part of being a human being makes that kind of behaviour OK. It's typical of the avoidance and deflection we've had over the years. There has never been any measure of or acceptance of any liability/fault or anything they could have done better and yet they see fit to try and muzzle people

Quit complaining. Shareholders need to accept it and be quiet otherwise the bully boys will be paid for writing another letter

I'm just wondering why they felt the need bearing in mind that as late as 18/2 they were planning to pay off the bonds

How much would over a years worth cost? At the outset, we would note that the Directors have sought legal advice from this Firm and from reputable counsel in the British VirginIslands (the "BVI") for over one year in relation to corporate restructuring, insolvency and directors' fiduciary duties issues and they have also taken financial advice from reputable external advisers throughout the process. As you would expect, the Directors have taken into consideration and followed all such legal and financial advice received when making decisions and considering how best to discharge their duties.

Be a little careful - this is being pumped by certain people on II and Twitter and rubbished in articles elswhere If you see a decent trade take it yourself and don't get used by others HTTP://www.shareprophets.com/views/7811/china-fraud-zedex-follow-up-asia-distribution-a-blatant-norfolk-that-aim-was-happy-with

Just wanted to make sure as well that KWB1 didn't think it was anything to do with you. ATB - hope you all get a the result you want

Those odd posts weren't philski it was someone else. He shut down the account.