Member Info for CaptainSwag

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?

i think there are two more days to go.

same as before - shrewd judge and the hur lawyer just waffling on...

incredible...not to self for the future - if directors sell then get out. also badly worded rns and out. if someone tweets about teslas - run for the door!

odx can not be blamed for the gov shambles. however if the traction on SP had been allowed to develop then we would not need almost 100% to get back to where we were.

I do not think ii's will buy into the company until they sort out their PR. Poorly worded RNS and tweets that damage the SP will not exactly make them come running.

thanks british - best of luck to you this week!

slift - as per usual with hur it is red or black. if CA et al lose the case then i agree with you - towards 0.1/2 p . if on the other hand there is a delay then i think we will be looking towards 2p.

mirasol - my argument with CPRs is that the company wants repeat business. there will be a pressure intangible or not to give the customer what he wants. there are enough disclaimers that they can absolve themselves of any real responsibility. i always think of it like an mot or gas safety cert. on the surface they are impartial..but.....

the other thing is that they are only working on the data supplied - they don't turn up on site and do their own tests. i wonder how often they disagree with the company supplying the data?
i am not saying hur have faked data - but from reading the statements there is clearly an issue over what data to use even before the interpretation

very very interesting reading - and backs up much of my questioning over the last few months
we were told that the 2017 cpr was proved wrong from acquired data - can accept this.
however we were then expected to believe the ERCE cpr was bulletproof - personally my spidey senses were tingling with halifax going to zero. seems that another CPR could well give a different opinion - if follwing Law's modelling.

As i have long stated theses CPRs are seemingly flawed - you get what you pay for. 2017 they needed a good one to get the project off the ground and got it ....2021 the bod seemingly needed a poor one to support of their low estimation and giveaway and got it.

an interesting question is - if the giveaway happens would a new "better" cpr then be available? once the company was practically "private"

will be very interesting this week and a headache for the judge. i would like to think there is enough doubt to justify a delay. if so bod changes - flotsam ditched. and game on..

wonder if they will now suspend shares? should have been done on first hearing imo.

GLA

thanks mate!

anybody know how to get CA skeleton argument pdf?

good news for LFT...we needed some positives after all the mess on innova

even Colin "can't sell a test in a pandemic" king must stand a chance now?
as for the 200+ staff - they have been paid for awhile now - hard to know doing what? the big launch seemed to be a bit more "big lunch"

john - seems they have enough alternatives just as good if not better than innova...just a question of why they are holding them up?

good news - is that the gov still has faith in LFT.
bad news - still can use Innova tests..

hopefully just to use up old stock - and then start using british made....

hope colin - now sees why you dont hit SP if it rises

thinkin- Totally agree

bet thing calamity and the wide boy at wal-broke can do is sit on their hands. they only thing they can ever do is destroy the SP

gla

trader - it is good to see we had a payment but that is not rns newsworthy - or at least it shouldn't be. i would be more worried if they had notified by rns

there was a pre production part in the contract so i had assumed we were at that stage anyway awaiting the go ahead on which product.

can't see how a payment of £2.4m is significant? the award was - surely we are not supposed to be notified every time they receive a payment?

sam- suspicions are one thing. my concern is that in the future meetings/court hearings people start bringing up "suspicions" as facts. not only could this alienate a "shrewd" judge but if easily proved wrong then casts doubts on other very relevant points brought up.

i would prefer to use more substantive information to highlight where i think the bod have not done their duty to the shareholders.