good post bartle - we may think the bod haven't been playing by the spirit of the game - but there is no proof. introducing the uncertainty with the judges observations so far is prob best tactic.
on the price of oil - maybe highlight that due to covid there has been a lack of investment in exploration etc which is why many experts predict the price might go significantly higher. although it has not been higher than 80s for 5 years it was before it was 2010-2014. so it is possible
Cebo - I agree with some of what you say. I have done 3 trades during the last two days - nothing huge and tbh what I call kebab money profit...my only worry now is that even with the decision going in our favour I only see a max 2p and if it goes against could easily halve.
I do think CA had the better day and I think it will be hard for the judge to agree to the sanction as the company has cash and oil is being produced. There is a year left in it providing no disaster. And I think there is a relatively strong argument to let it try to continue.
I only hope we don't get too many share holders tmrw going on about conspiracy theories. I am not saying the bod have not been underhand but without proof..I think it could weaken the case. The judge has presumably read all the emails anyway.
hur lawyer just contradicted himself - spent all yesterday saying no shareholder value as company bust . now he says they are better off under restructure as 5%.so now admitting there could be some value...haha...
slift - i think the issue might be that CA do not agree with hur's estimation in oil present and therefore the future of the project. they are looking at investing in future development whereas hur are just looking to transfer the company over to bondholders (whatever their plans maybe) or wind up
slift - there was mention of cash - 168million(?) but some has been earmarked. i was a little distracted at that moment
as i posted earlier - i do think a lot will depend on how the bondholders want to play it. the longer there is production the more chance of getting back more of their money - and i think that is what the judge is thinking . however once the bondholders have had a sniff of getting the company are they going to let go easy? their lawyer may indicate if the restructure does not go ahead they will call in the chips regardless. of course the judge may not take such a threat favourably but what can he do to negate it
the judge is in a tricky place as this could easily be a reference case for future courts. i sense he is sympathetic to the shareholders but he also knows a delay and the bod is toast.
i think i would just give the edge to hur today- their lawyer dragged the session on got their points made. the judge had him on the ropes a couple of times but potentially let him off the hook. however he did similar in the first hearing and came up with the right decision.
hopefully they will quickly move on to the bondholders lawyer - and he will just concur without repeating it all again. then we can move onto CA. it will be interesting how they play it...obviously their expert v maris/erce but how much emphasis on the obstructive behaviour of the bod?
dyor - yes he seemed to me that he was fudging a lot and also trying to paint the most negative picture as possible - to be expected of course as the company say there is no shareholder value. he just seems to talk a lot to disguise when he doesn't know something. however unfortunately at times it does seem to work the judge looked like he had lost to will to live at times
hopefully the CA lawyer will point out that even though BW have advertised the AM they still have 2 vessels not currently used and their own debt issues...so there should be no issue if the company can quickly arrange an extension
the judge pointed out that the poo was currently higher than the projection in the may hearing for this time - the "waffler" started up
Jeepers that was hard work today. The Hur lawyer just goes on and on...he spent 2.5 hrs saying what he said in the first hearing..in other words that there is not enough oil and therefore no value to shareholders. Therefore please let the bondholders have the company and they can then decide what they want to do...
The judge had some good questions but just gets lost in a sea of waffle..the history of the company didn't need to be gone into - you can read the pack..should have gone straight to the argument between both sides..
The crux will be what pressure bond holders will exert...and whether the CA lawyer can persuade the judge that there is enough doubt over oil in place to warrant more time..
The judge seems sympathetic to share holders but the real question is how much of a barrel the bondholders have us over
i think it will come down to whether the bondholders are going to want to play hard ball.
it is their interest to keep the well running and extend the lease on the AM - more return. however are they going to try and play hardball and get the company signed over to them? will the judge allow this?
unless they play hard ball there is no reason not to delay - but then the bod are gone and the plan.