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.
I don't think it works like that Longside. I obviously don't have access to the details but it be would usual for LCF to have those loan agreements as security but not for them to enjoy the warrants/convertibles upside. Just like anyone who has a mortgage lodges the house deeds as security with the building society but the building society only gets its money back, it doesn't enjoy the house price appreciation when sold.
But there may be a change in the above as LOG goes into administration.
Is that actually true rxdav ?
If so, slightly scary that someone apparently as volatile and self aggrieved as yourself has passed the officer filter and been given access to live ammunition. I know several army officers and none come across as you do. If you really were in the army and achieved senior rank, maybe it's time to move on from the humble origins.
But continuing on your theme, no like the vast majority of UK citizens I'm pleased to say I haven't been in a war zone. That is the point of having a professional army of which you claim to have been a member. Do you remember the lecture about representing queen and country ?
PS I, like most citizens, thank all professional soldiers who both put themselves in harm's way, so that we don't have to, and conduct themselves with courage and honour both on and off the field. If you really were such a person I commend you.
600T
Unconvinced. Realistically how can RRE make a formal offer prior to being given access to vital loan documentation. IOG are substantially indebted. In reality as of the last RNSs, IOG don't want RRE to make formal offer otherwise they would have shown them their data room including loan documents. They must have one if they have been in discussions with interested parties this last 9 months. Neither you nor I know why that is. We may like to assume it is because there are other better offers being discussed but we simply don't know.
The £2.2bn is potential gas sales revenue and does not exist as of today. Try paying off this month's VISA bill with future potential earnings.
I wonder to what degree LCF bondholders have had a chance to communicate their immediate cash requirements to the Administrators.
Remember also LCF bond holders don't directly enjoy IOG's possible upside. That cream was reserved for LOG. Now it sounds like LOG have lent tens of millions to unworthy businesses so by default if there is upside to IOG they may receive some of that if that gain is retained in LOG to pay LOG's loan losses to these iffy businesses. But we don't know. LOG could just for example have reserved much of the IOG gains for the LOG team under employment contracts. We don't know.
But it's cash they want. If they wanted to invest in pre development gas fields they would have done so by buying AIM oil and gas shares.
Longside - if you were a LCF bondholder I bet you'd want all the help you could get. RRE is their very best hope as of today.
rxdav - we simply don't know - IOG has to date failed to announce a firm JV or offer - maybe something will come good - maybe it won't - we obviously have to wait.
By the way I liked your Zulu analogy - though you do realise you're poor old Jack Hawkins' Rev Otto Witt.
Woogle - I wouldn't think for a moment I could influence this or any other company's share price. I don't know about RRE digging deeper - they seem to be the only firm offer in town and like any prospective bidder must be wary of the whole IOG/LOG/LCF chain and whether anything is unearthed which could cost them at some stage.
GGTS - we have no idea of AA's nature - though many RRE shareholders would steer towards him verging on the munificent.
RRE like IOG's gas assets. Like the market and most of us they are not impressed by IOG's corporate structure. Significant debt, and substantial equity claims by LOG.
I think RRE just wanted to offer IOG shareholders some of the assets' value rather than as a first choice pursue the assets through possible administration.
Not sure how IOG's reluctance to discuss and share information with RRE has changed that initial strategy.
My guess is 16p. It was 13p before RRE's offer but IOG have claimed interest from others so somewhere between 13p and the current 18p.
Hoping RRE will deliver more than that through an offer.
Just a guess and we should always remember IOG's assets seem promising albeit in a volatile UK gas price environment.
Another important point is if RRE are not being given access to these loan documents then I don't think IOG or the LOG administrator can give them to any other potential offeror, can they ?
If they did then RRE could probably sue but also IOG shareholders or even LCF bond holders could sue on the basis that they are being forced to accept a non-competitive and so potentially lower offer ?
Yes it's pretty grimy.
Lots of red flags for me:
Why the unwillingness by IOG to give potential offerors ( like RockRose) access to loan agreements ? By being denied access any offeror is bound to limit their offer in case there's some adverse clauses in the agreements.
If the IOG assets were so attractive - and they do seem quite reasonable - why did IOG choose their sole pre-field development lender as a party to hand over two thirds of the company to ( assuming all warrants and convertibles applied). Was this absolutely the best possible deal they could have sourced ?
Why did LCF let LOG take all the potential equity upside on IOG type deals. It could have lent direct. Not through a middle man who takes all the potential cream.
Why has S&W been appointed administrator of both LCF and LOG. As LOG is a borrower from LCF then S&W could find themselves conflicted maybe ? What's good for LCF's lenders (the bond holders) - quick repayment of their investments - may not be good for LOG. So is there a problem here ?
Yes RRE and AA have been pretty brave expressing an interest in IOG in the circumstances. Let's hope the LOG administrator is providing the correct amount of information to enable them to go forward.
rxdav I appreciate the IOG/LOG/LCF chain is quite complicated but you are self evidently wrong to suggest that rejecting an offer from a cash rich company like RockRose, or any other in its fortunate circumstances, is in any way beneficial to LCF bond holders.
Here below is an explanation of why you are wholly misguided.
LCF bond holders have, as reported in the media, placed their life savings into these bonds. They invested in the belief that they would enjoy high rates of interest and easy access to capital. Sadly the administration of LCF means they now enjoy neither. Being dependent on their funds means they have a very high time value to their money. In your parlance a bird in the hand is worth three in the bush.
LOG possess warrants and convertibles. To activate the warrants they have to pay IOG hard cash. LOG are in administration. They have no cash. These warrants and convertibles have expiry dates beginning later this year. LOG simply does not have the luxury of waiting several years for IOGs gas fields to come good.
UK gas prices are volatile. Witness the 25% fall this year alone. This is one reason why IOG has as up to today been unable to announce a firm funding deal and why it has to date had to offer away two thirds of the company to its funder LOG simply to fund pre field development expenditure.
IOG do not have an operating team in place of the size neaded to run their gas fields development. They are currently reliant on a third party offeror having the manpower in place. There are few companies with field profiles RockRose have who are operators ( I’m assuming its Marathon deal completes) and so have the team becoming available in a timely fashion.
I’m all for wider share ownership. I’m guessing you’re of the ‘Sid’ generation, rightly lured by the opportunities equity ownership offers. You’ve already been a victim of ‘bad’ lending and I hope your situation is resolved as well as it can be but as previously mentioned IOG finds itself in a complicated and difficult situation. With all due respect the last thing IOG needs is some ‘Sid’ shooting off in all directions.
No, that's the point - IOG would have no idea there is any possible wrongdoing further down the lending chain. My point is - could they be a victim if a lender to them had known the funds lent were dishonestly obtained from the public ?
If one party to a loan contract knows it's based on fraudulent funds does that negate the contract ? I think there may be a principle of law that you can't use contract law to enforce anything that is illegal. I appreciate that's a legal question so probably outside your knowledge base ( even as a victim of bad lending) and only comes up because the chairman of LOG has been arrested.
For the record, the S&W report was on the assets of IOG i.e. is it a good project and hence good security for the loan.
Thanks rxdav for the feedback. Hope you didn't mind me asking you in your capacity as a previous victim of bad lending.
From what you're saying it doesn't matter what the original source of funds on lent to IOG has been ( even if later found in court to be fraudulently obtained by LCF). IOG are under no obligation to repay except under the terms of the contract they signed with LOG. LOG completely separates IOG from anything that may or may not have happened at LCF.
Just out of interest - the chairman of LOG has been arrested. I have no idea where that will lead but just say hypothetically a lender to IOG ( I emphasise IOG doesn't know of any possible wrongdoing) did know it was on lending fraudulently obtained funds. Would that make a difference or would you argue the loan contract between IOG and LOG means it doesn't matter?
Irrespective of any long position one might have in IOG, the latest Evening Standard article makes grim reading - apparently new LCF bond buyers were encouraged to buy bonds for a full three months after LCF had no chance of honouring their commitment to these bond holders. It sounds anyone who bought the bonds after Sep last year could have a case. I guess for fraud maybe if the ES article is accurate ?
Anyone know if this could unwittingly effect IOG ? Did they borrow from LOG after Sep last year ? Did LOG borrow from LCF after Sep last year ? Hypothetically how does it work if a company's source of borrowing originates from fraud ? Obviously in IOG's case even if they did enjoy funds after Sep they would not have accepted them if they even knew of any possibility of dodgy dealing further down the lender line. So IOG must be unaware of any dodgy dealings by LCF or even LOG. Is that why the LOG chairman was arrested ? But how does it leave IOG ? Anyone know banking law etc ?
Completely moving away from the IOG/LOG/LCF situation and just talking generally - in extreme if a person unknowingly borrowed from someone who stole from someone else and the theft was uncovered would that person have to repay the thief so the victim could be hopefully repaid as soon as possible.
I'll have a look at the RNSs and see if I can work out borrowing from LOG timings. Totally crummy for such a promising project to have unwittingly been involved in these lenders.
rxdav - I see from your posts you've been on the wrong end of some bad lending - from your experience of sub-standard activities can you shed any light ?
Smut, yes it's a real shame takeover bids have to be made almost blind when at companies like IOG - most shareholders are private investors - and so don't get contacted directly by the acquirer to see what price works for them.
Atb
rxdav, through my tears of laughter I respond:
The BoD are - under the Companies Act - obligated to do what's best for the company. Their own 24p options are in isolation not supposed to be a factor when evaluating the merits of a bid.
For you to suggest otherwise you're effectively stating the BoD will act in contravention of the Companies Act. Ordinarily I'd suggest you withdraw that claim without delay but in your case you probably don't have to as you could convincingly argue no one takes you seriously.
rxdav, I suppose if nothing else you're amusing. In fact you are extremely amusing. Thank you.
I'm with you Fast-ted. IOG's assets are good but they face 2 headwinds as I see it.
One is the price of UK gas which has fallen quite a lot this year. I don't think is just a hot weather thing. Global gas prices are depressed as LNG supplies are looking for customers even in Asia. Would an IOG bidder temper their bid due to this ? I don't know but it would be reasonable if they thought lower gas prices are here to stay.
The other is time. RockRose have the cash and can move quickly. Most - even large companies - are indebted and take much more time with their due diligence not just as a function of their size but also their wish to be seen as cautious by their bankers. My worry is the crummy background to LOG's administration - LCF defaulting on bond holders - means a quickish decision by the administrators is probably required in reality.
For what little it's worth if it were me I'd agree:
RRE pay existing IOG shareholders 23p
RRE buy the debt for £40m
RRE offer cash for the debt related in the money warrants/convertibles value i.e. 23p minus strike price
RRE arrange for any disgruntled IOG shareholder to reinvest in RRE shares if they can agree with a RRE seller like Macquarie so as to capture some of the IOG upside and RRE ( +Marathon) upside.
LOG gets a 2% gross royalty on the IOG fields. This money goes to LOG so will ultimately go to LCF bond holders as LOG has additional crummy non-IOG loans on its books.
jimmy00 thanks for your comments but trust me I've seen at close hand the real pros working on people.
rxdav is a tiny mouse compared to the experts. He's just scared his modest investment in IOG may turn bad.
Me I think IOG's assets are pretty good. The IOG board just have to be both clever and considered in their response to RRE's entirely legitimate and legitimately expressed interest. I'm not at all convinced they haven't snatched defeat from the jaws of victory with yesterday's RNS.