does he still own shares in the company?
he was put on garfdening leave for 6 months last june - so presumably was gagged from saying anything and possibly selling shares. does not mean that he has not sold up (I always wondered if CA could have bought them when they were increasing their stake?). i think he was under the rns threshhold - so would not need to be notified to market
mr india - twitter would have appeared to move the price down more often up in my observations. the SP rises have often come about in between rns (director sells/ undermine contract) and when twitter is quiet. after it has raised a bit somebody on twitter has a burst - it never seems to increase momentum and in some cases self destructs (tesla or other speed checks).
I would be happy if they just used it to advertise the products in a professional way like other companies. the "pally" act with some highlighted tweeters leads to disrespect and amateurism . rns should state facts no need to highlight every possible negative outcome - especially if it will be followed by contradictory tweets of "big" things coming and no reason to believe full order will not be taken up.
pink - if it were the last pepsi - i don't think the dehydrating factor would make much difference. if it were my last ever drink i would probably prefer an ice cold german weissbier ..but an ice cold pepsi would be preferable to water!
personally i think hur holders have two options
1) replace bod
2) see their holding become worthless
1) maybe a CA backed bod could turn things around. big if but possibility and seemingly nothing to lose
2) the bod will either wind down quickly or slowly depending what bondholders want. If the giveaway goes ahead equity becomes 5%. if it doesn't then either liquidation (0%) or the company is left being run by the current bod who have clearly stated they cannot make a profit
my thought is that an EGM really needs to come before the sanction hearing so 4th june for the two weeks notice
agree with computer.
"news around the corner" has been for months. the only "news" was the government's award and the company decided to undermine the extent of this news. on AIM lack of news causes SP slide and any potential negatives of the macroenvironment or other similar companies tend to cause negativity in the SP. this is why companies need to get "gains" when they can because the market will want to recover them later. hopefully calamity will eventually realise this and be careful how he communicates by rns/tweet in future.
one would hope in a pandemic that selling tests would be like trying to sell the last pepsi in the desert. hopefully the "big lunch or launch " or whatever it was - will bring "big" things in the end . howrever the company needs to make sure they dont keep shooting themselves in the foot
spike - were you at the hearing? that is my memory of very roughly what he said during it. if you heard something different I would be interested on your take
I disagree on this
The only thing the Judge has ruled at this stage is that the conditions for proceeding to the sanctions hearing have been met. They will be met when the shareholders have had a chance to meet
"I do not accept this While it is true, for example, that pre-emption rights are removed by section 566A, that is only if there is an allotment of shares pursuant to a Part 26A Plan An allotment of shares can only take place pursuant to Part 26A Plan if the procedure under Part 26A is followed, including the provisions of section 901C Put another way, section 566A only potentially disapplies section 561(1); they are actually disapplied if a Part 26A Plan (pursuant to which an allotment is to be made) is sanctioned by the Court; accordingly the pre-emption rights of shareholders are "affected by" a Plan which dilutes their shareholding, because it is the Plan which triggers the disapplication of their pre-emption rights under section 566A"
In this context, I consider the better view to be that the rights of shareholders (who are taken to have an economic interest in the company) to participate in the capital and profits of a company are "affected by" a Plan that would dilute such participation. This construction ensures that the views of shareholders whose economic interest in the company is directly and potentially significantly affected by the Plan are taken into account in the process mandated by Part 26A.
IF is very different from UNDER. conditional v preposition
hur have said that the restructure is needed and has no effect on shareholders as there is no way the company will be in profit ever. on the forum the 5% or 0% that has been bandied about.
the judge said at the hearing that he is very aware that the picture can change very quickly with oil companies - price of oil / value of assets and he even mentioned water cut could change.
so whilst the company is saying there is no chance of profits ever - he is disagreeing with the absolute of this .in view of the bonds not being due for a year and that the bondholders have no benefit from an immediate liquidation as opposed to a wind down in a year (or more) he is questioning if it is premature.
he is also saying that he believes there is a possibility (he has not quantified how small and it is not important) that the future may be different from that projected by the company
it is a very good question. i was explaining the position of hur to a mate in sep. he said they will destroy the SP , acquire the majority of equity and then turn private by offering a low ball off for remaining share. they will either then do the work needed or sell it or the assets
at the time i had rose colured glasses with dreams of "significant" oil in sandstone and the promise a fwp. i did listen to my mate as he sees things very different to me and is often right. he has also been in this situation and said he recognised the template
i didn't then and don't know now if it is true or possible. i do know that at 95% the company will seem private as shareholders will have no power. the liquidity will be terrible and so any offer will be probably the only way to get your cash back. the offer will be higher than the 0.1p of the then current SP but much less than today
i would not say rubbished - but there is this quote
"This would give rise to the POSSIBILITY of full repayment of the (modified) Bonds and some measure of value in the shareholding.
I have capitalised possibility as it is underlined.
i think the judge was aware that under the restructuring plan not only would the bondholders having their interest raised, the longer the company produces the more recovery of full bond payment......... and they then basically own the company and any profit should it be made. All at the expense of the shareholders.
of course there is the argument that there will be no profit ever - however no one knows what the future may bring. what if oil price rockets / spirit wake up? water cut goes down(miracles) etc
presumably if at the end -the debt were still greater than cashable assets the bondholders would take preference and be paid as much as there is . however should there be any turnaround - and of course one can argue the unlikely/probability etc- they will profit at the expense of annihilation of shareholder value
by the plan hur will have achieved a) $50m less debt and b) extension of bonds
the extension of bonds was the important part. they decided to give away the company for that - the question is could they have played it in another way?
eg we liquidate now and you get part of your stake. however extend bonds and we will will give you more interest and you will get back more of your stake?
the bondholders would have been in no worse position
Hasiba...I have always been of the opinion that you don't learn anything by people agreeing with you. There is possibly something to be learnt in disagreement . I have learnt some stuff off slift eg oil future curve . I still feel it is wrong but I can see what Hur used and the legitimacy of it etc
Let me reword that. After giving a massive downgrade why would the bod want a CPR that basically says no ...they are incompetent.
I am not saying the bod wanted a downgrade but having decided there was one..they would not want the opposite conclusion coming out.
My real beef is with the CPR process. I just don't think they are always worth the paper they are written on
Tbh I think that posters should value slift mcadder et Al contributions. You need there arguments to hone your own in case it does come out in court. If you can't battle them without resorting to names then what chance against a lawyer ? They do have well thought out arguments - if a tad repetitive at times .and deserve consideration.
They may well be right at the end of the day.
I think both like me in the beginning for the court case was a formality ..so were wrong on that score. Hopefully they will be equally wrong on other stuff.
I suspect at times that they may be repeating to wind certain people up . If it works then just use scroll or block. Job done
RNs. I don't think erce are in cahoots with Hur in some kind of premeditated plot.
However Hur wanted a CPR and prob wanted it to back up their evaluation...erce presumably want repeat business and not a reputation of being difficult or trashing a potential clients competency. The disclaimer means that as soon as it is written erce have no responsibility . I don't think it is so far fetched to question things. Let's face it people are happy enough to question the legitimacy of the first one when the company do a 280 on it
Slift - I wonder if the CPR company don't take the lead from Hur ? Ie did Hur give any sort of figure ?
If for example Hur said 10m barrels then you could expect erce to say we concur or actually think it is 5 or 15 etc..
Ngr - I have thought about this and as soon as trice left (SP 6p ISH). I would have said that the "geology" has gone Pete tong. We need a new well 8...and I would have used trices choice of position not through well 7. I would then tried to do a placing or open offer to shareholders . It would have been serious dilution but a lot better than the give away. The thing is after 9 months of trashing share and inaction how could you expect anyone to want to participate. The bond holders would not have been in their shoulders either.
Of course it might not have worked..but looking at the bod since September you cannot say they could have done things any worse than they actually did
i agree there are those who post to affect the SP - i am not sure how realistic this is. i always think that assuming that a post has that much power is probably a bit egocentric.
i dislike the "i am filtering xyz" posts for the same reason. personally i just skip someone i am not interested in. i dont need to make a song and dance about it and certainly would not assume anybody cared if i did. often the person who does this kind of post then responds to someone on the list - which just shows it was all attention seeking anyway.