The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
600T
Yes S&W will receive their fees.
Surge has already received its commission. Although there may be grounds for recovering this if it is found that Surge were knowingly selling a duff investment ( I have no view on the likelihood of this being the case).
S&W will try and expedite a return of capital to the bondholders.
The LCF bond holders do not appear to be covered by the FSCS.
Yes I do believe the bond holders will receive much the majority of the £40m. HMRC may have a claim on for example unpaid NI on LCF employee salaries but the majority of the £40m would go to the bondholders as soon as preferred creditors like HMRC are quantified and in the absence of an extremely high S&W fee.
I'd leave the court to decide what remedy RRE and AA may have if I were you.
Smut,
RRE's offer for the debt was formal. Naturally they required the loan documentation to progress to a firm offer. They lodged £40m as proof of funds. Difficult to see how they could have expressed more commitment in the absence of the documentation.
Careful Longside - if RRE and AA consider there are grounds for pursuing defamation claims they may use your posts as supporting evidence.
Quite the most negative RNS I could think of. In yesterday evening's RNS the Chairman thrice described RockRose as exploiting and trying to take advantage of LCF bond holders, whom as we know are largely pensioners relying on their 8% bond income.
Such repeated adverse public comment is highly unusual in an RNS which by its nature is designed to be widely circulated. Was the RNS approved by all members of the board ? In addition AA was singled out for adverse association by name.
Unfortunately LCF bond holders receive their investment back plus 8% interest annually. They do not directly participate in the future upside which may or may not exist in IOG's equity value except in the very oblique sense that their borrowing counter party LOG may or may not retain any IOG possible profits. LOG, which has lent money to IOG on rather juicy terms, will enjoy possible future upside in IOG's value not LCF's bond holders. Presumably that is why LOG was created. To enjoy any equity upside. Otherwise LCF could have lent directly.
RockRose is, as disclosed as of today, the only company which has made a firm, cash backed, offer which will result in LCF bond holders receiving the full proportion of their investment back which was on lent to LOG.
Any suggestion that RockRose is behaving improperly is not supported by the publicly available facts. Nor is it supported by the market which currently values IOG at 19p a share ( 13p before RockRose's rejected equity offer suggestion) and so perhaps rightly views future equity upside with scepticism.
One has to wonder why RockRose is receiving so much hostility to its committed and well resourced offer to effectively repay LCF bond holders their IOG/LOG on lent risked principal back and why RockRose has apparently not been given necessary access to loan documentation.
One hopes the Chairman of LOG will be in a position to provide some guidance and clarity on these matters ( assuming he is free to do so following his arrest).
rxdav
I stated facts not expressed sycophancy. AA has looked after RRE shareholders better than almost all other listed companies since floating 3 years ago.
It is your choice to avoid such a man but all I can say is I hope it's your capital you're investing not others.
Much as I want a good deal for IOG, I can't let you shoot down AA like you are.
Since floating RRE in 2016, AA has presided over a 5 plus fold increase in the share price. He has paid a special dividend equivalent to the IPO price. He has presided over 5 astute oil and gas field acquisitions. He has been a party to successful wells and field extensions. Over 200 Marathon employees should shortly be joining an expansion minded company with commensurate career prospects.
Heaven knows we shareholders need more CEOs like AA.
I can't understand why the LOG administrator wouldn't talk to RRE. IOG has the right to the gas fields so it's not like a competitor could take the fields off IOG.
My reading of AA is he puts shareholders first - look at his performance at RRE this last year - special dividend and share buy back.
Maybe I'm being overoptimistic but I'd say AA's natural instinct is to see IOG shareholders right to some extent.
Unless IOG have a firm offer from a well financed partner on the table then the LOG administrator is taking quite a risk. If IOG does have such an offer should it not be RNS'd already ?
Price of gas has fallen a lot this year. Companies who expressed an interest a month or two ago may be less keen as international LNG cargoes seem to be having a structural downward effect on UK gas prices.
2 things stand out:
The nearest study ( Bolero 2) to a placebo arm, if done in this STEM trial, showed a 0.4% response. So Evgen's 24% CBR response is nearly all better than 'placebo'.
The STEM patients who have gone onto the compassionate use stage are currently looking at around 9 months average progression free survival during that stage ( prior to final data being available).
( Think I heard the above right in Q&A at the end.)
Looks like SFX-01 is showing good signs of efficacy in a difficult late stage setting.
Mega Pharma 'We need to talk. These are serious results.'
Evgen 'We also have a sister molecule which in pre-clinical work shows 8 times SFX-01 anti-cancer activity.' (5 Mar 2018 RNS)
Mega Pharma 'We'll be round this afternoon for exclusive talks on licensing both molecules.'
Evgen 'We can't do exclusive.'
Mega Pharma 'See you later this morning.'
Can't immediately think of a more attractive opportunity for big pharma in this space.
Gas price fallen 25% this year. Cmon IOG board. Close the deal soon. Don’t want LOG administrator to change mind.
Yes ResAnal1, interesting mention of pharma start-ups moving out of the Oxford/Cambridge/London triangle. No doubt Evgen, Redx and Tissue Regenix were pleased to be mentioned in this brief location focused article.
ResAnal1
40 to 55% royalties ?
Not previously known in pharma.
Breq - long Evgen
b1,GGTS, 600T - thanks.
The reason why I'm a bit thrown off balance by the IOG board so far is IOG is in a very binary situation because of LCF's insolvency. From the latest public info at Cos Hs, the LCF administrator could call in LCF's loan to LOG. In the absence of a new lender to LOG, LOG would then go under itself. IOG would then have to come up with a new funder ASAP. I kind of think if there were a number of possible lenders to IOG it would have taken up offers in the past as LOG's lending is actually on quite tough terms. Essentially 9% + libor plus around 2/3rds of IOG if all warrants and convertibles are applied.
Just hoping IOG shareholders get full information ASAP so they can work out what's best.
Also b1, I completely get the not wanting to give competitors too much info but in this particular case IOG do control the gas field licenses and pipeline. It's not like they are selling consumer electronics say and a competitor could see what new products are coming along. But I guess they have to cautious.
600T - that Slaughter and May doc is very useful. Thanks.
page 13 para 3 - suggests the board of IOG must allow IOG shareholders the opportunity to decide on the merits of the bid
So in this case the IOG shareholders can only decide on the merits of the RRE (or other) bid if the IOG board gives them maximum info about farm in progress and financing issues with LOG/LCF. The board can't really just say something like 'the farm in process is attracting strong interest'. I wouldn't think that is sufficient to give IOG shareholders sufficient info to evaluate an RRE ( or other) bid.
Hoping RRE make a firm bid. At the very least IOG shareholders should then be told exactly what's going on behind the scenes.
All IMHO.
Thanks GGITS. All good points.
trellis35
Thanks. Very interesting.
But the loan from LCF to LOG is only an interest loan I think. So the LCF administrator only cares about getting the loan principal and interest repaid. Presumably it shouldn't care whether LOG makes more money on their IOG warrants/convertibles by way of a farm out which is anyway unproven to date. That's not its legal concern.
If RRE pay 20p or a little more then LOG will make a decent profit on its warrants/convertibles, pay back all its LCF loans including loans used to finance lending to Atlantic, and LCF will have reclaimed all the LOG money owed and be able to repay that portion of its borrowing to LCF pensioner bondholders.
Otherwise the LCF administrator has - for no obvious reason - become a venturer. Which I'm sure it would prefer not to do unless absolutely necessary.
All IMHO. We all have limited knowledge as LOG and LCF have used accounting rules to delay filing accounts at Companies House. It is interesting that both LOG and LCF extended the time they had to file accounts with Companies House.
Thanks all. Really informative.
But what I'm wondering is as the IOG board have a duty to the company ( IOG) not to LOG, can they legally turn down a certain deal from cash rich RRE - giving the company funds to repay it's LOG loans with certainty - or are they allowed to 'bet the ranch' on another purchaser or farm out deal which may or may not occur in the future.
This is only a factor because IOG's loans look like they are coming up for repayment from this June onwards and IOG also need more money to fully pay for the Harvey well.
So it seems IMHO that IOG's board face 2 issues - can they risk the company knowing that they have loans to pay back in 3 months but also knowing RRE is offering them a solution, and also the LCF administrator knowing cash rich RRE is effectively currently offering LCF its money back but may disappear if IOG refuses to enter into proper talks/disclosure with RRE.
Anyone know the legal situation ? How long the LCF administrator can wait for LOG to repay their loan ? A month ? Two months ? More ?
My point is how long does the LCF administrator legally have before they have to accept the RRE offer or LOG find an alternative source of funds to repay LCF ?
As LCF pensioner bondholders are relying on the money what's the maximum delay the LCF administrator will tolerate as members of the public are affected by all this ?