Member Info for Corryvreckan1

Guidance maintained within range but anything that's not a 'beat' in the current market gets overly punished. I also recall discussing last summer after the FY results were published that the lack of forward guidance, which they gave valid reasons for, may have contributed to the drop. Same applies today for similar reasons, a fuller outlook now to be given in July.

Standard seasonal variation. They maintain their fleet and keep staff on through the quieter winter months to ensure they are ready to take the spring to autumn opportunities. Particularly beneficial recently when airlines have found it difficult to find experienced staff. There's other high winter costs to cover from reduced cash flow at that time as well, more details in previous annual reports/presentations.

You can see the same variation between Sept/March in previous years.

The difference of 250,000 shares to make up to their previous holding went through as a separate trade at the same price, delayed reporting from 11.10.01am. May have been done separately to cover the fees for finding a buyer? Negotiated transfer makes sense for that volume at that price.

MFT Capital didn't buy the original shares though, they were a deferred consideration for the original acquisition of Boom Battle Bars from them in Nov 2021.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/XPF/issue-of-equity-and-total-voting-rights-a6fosj2xoynxlpm.html

The lock-in for those shares not to be sold was relatively short and only until 15 July 2023, so they haven't sold any until now. TR-1s due within 2 business days to see who took them, but looking at the large after hours trade reporting some may already have been 'Flipped Out' ;o).

If Mayflower has no luck tomorrow then you could bump the issue up to customer complaints and ask them to resolve with the corporate actions team, or similar. If the DCUs were still listed in an account in your name with HSBC on 31st December then you are legally entitled to receive that payment, on or as soon as reasonably possible after the 28th March.

The irony being that HSBC are the bank that Prax use for the $/£ FX on their payments...

I think the contact details for Computershare are in the FAQ section on Prax website.

That sounds like a cop out by them. If you have Class II DCUs in exchange for previously held Hurricane shares, and if you received the payment in Sept/Oct okay, and if those same DCUs are still listed on your account, then HSBC should still have received this payment direct from Computershare (Prax' Registrar) to distribute to you. If they didn't then that's a matter between HSBC and Computershare.

All Prax will do is pay over to Computershare the grand total to be distributed to all DCU holders on their Register so speaking directly to them is unlikely to resolve it. If HSBC are unwilling to help then try contacting Computershare, although they may just hold a total nominee value per broker and not necessarily have you listed by name?

It looks like IG and Barclays were also caught napping and had to rush out a reconciliation to pay holders late so would not be surprised if HSBC also do find they have the money and just haven't dealt with it yet.

Senseman - same for HL - it looks to me like they are just trying to find a home for it in their menus that maybe doesn't quite fit the actual nature of the payments.

The investopedia article you link to is specific to the USA. The "Return of Capital" mentioned at the bottom of that Barclay's notification again just looks like an unedited hang over from the template they have used and not relevant to the actual payment?

"Investors who held shares on 28 December 2023 are entitled to receive this dividend ..."

You don't hold any "shares" in anything anymore and you are not entitled to a dividend from Prax.

That statement further supports my view that they are using an incorrect automated notification template that has not been properly reviewed.

Oh wow, I can’t believe they issued that! At least they got the Record date and Announcement date correct.

The payment is deferred consideration for the purchase of your Hurricane shares. The clue is in the name – DCU – Deferred Consideration Unit. Prax clearly refer to it as a “Deferred Payment per DCU” on the statements they issue on their website – the word dividend does not appear anywhere on those statements.

They mention an Ex date (whatever that is) of 29/12 which is the same as the Record date – if it was a dividend (it’s not) then the ExDiv date would be the day before the Record date!

“Effective date” of 04/04/24 - I have no idea what that even means? Was that the date they decided to pay you? The payment date was 28/3, as required by the scheme Deed Poll, and some brokers credited accounts that day and cheques received by holders of paper certificates were dated and received that day.

No idea why they are quoting the payment to a zillion decimal places. That would be a very exact value you might get by dividing the total sum to be distributed by the number of DCUs in issue. The official Payment Calculation statement issued by Prax, and every other broker issued notification I know of, only quote the rounded value of £0.00617.

I looks to me like they are maybe trying to warp the payment details into a computer generated notification that is not fit for that purpose and has not been reviewed and edited by anyone who has actually read the scheme documents, e.g. perhaps someone in their legal team (not their corporate actions team).

All in my opinion of course, and I could be wrong, but then I have read the scheme docs in some detail, which anyone else can do as well. As I said before you could ask them for evidence (from Prax/Computershare), but that’s obviously up to you how far down the rabbit hole you want to go…

“It appears the DCU payments are being treated as dividends, not delayed payment for the original ‘purchase’. - Is this expected?”

- They are not being treated as dividends by Prax or anyone else I am aware of so that looks like an issue between you and your Broker.

“Prax are declaring the DCUs as dividend payment to, in my case, Barclays”

- As above, it is not Prax that are declaring the DCUs as a dividend payment, that looks like a misinterpretation by Barclays. You could ask them for evidence of their claim…

“…and are stating ‘exDIV dates’ inline with the 6 month periods”

- again a matter for your broker to resolve. Prax are not stating exDiv dates anywhere, however, they are stating a “Payment Record Date” which is “the final day of the relevant Half-Year” * i.e. you need to hold the DCU on 30 June to receive the payment at end September, and hold on 31 December to receive the payment at end March. That is not the same as an exDiv date because the payments are not dividends.

Your final two points are in line with what most brokers now appear to be doing and there may be no way round them doing that as it broadly appears to be correct, if not actually proven to be (yet).

* quotes are direct from the Deed Poll governing the scheme.

Alanadale - apologies, I misread your message about the relative highs being for the two different names. That 448 in Feb 2022 was then the high for ATYM. It was just a name change though (Oct 2015), so essentially the same company?

Due to be published on 17th April.

My chart only goes back to 2010 but Google are even showing an ATH above 860 back in June 2008, but I think that was maybe before a restructure so not sure how relevant it still is?

ATH is 678 intraday on 17 Jan 2011, closing high of 622.5 same day (that intraday swing is not a typo).

SP has now finally closed above the long term downtrend started from that ATH point and passing through the recent high of 448 on 16 Feb 2022. Needs to hold above that line now and then I have next key resistance at that same 448.

Move to main market needs to be fully complete by 4 June to be considered for the FTSE250 rebalance in June, otherwise it won't be until September.

Key upcoming dates from website:

11 APR 2024 - Q1 2024 Operations Update

21 MAY 2024 - Q1 2024 Financial Results

26 JUN 2024 - 2024 Annual General Meeting

I genuinely am trying to make a helpful suggestion here but can see that I have strayed into frustration. Apologies for that.

Thank you nomlungu, that would be far better and then people can decide themselves if that is a website they wish to access.

A-s-h-t-o-n - "character space is limited" - you are permitted 3,000 characters per post on this board, your tinyurl links today only used 28 characters in each post! You could easily have added context to them.

And you still haven't stated where those links are directed to. As I noted above they could be taking you to a website that someone doesn't wish to access for whatever reason personal to them, regardless of whether it is safe or not. Or, they could be directing to an article that someone has already read or knows the details of and therefore clicking on your 'blind' link is a waste of their time.

Your first link today was to the RNS on Bluejay's website (I have just tested nomlungu's suggestion to see that). I had already read the RNS on this site via the button at the top of this page so clicking on your link wasn't necessary and would be a waste of time. I would have known that if you had stated what the link was for, or provided the full link here so that people could see the full path where it was directing and then ignore it if need be.

FY23 results are due this month, outlook section and the promised guidance for FY24 will be key.

A-s-h-t-o-n: I need to ask, and should have done so a long time ago, what are all these 'tinyurl' links that you keep pasting? I'm not clicking on any of them because for all I know they could take me to a spam website.

There is nothing in the text in your posts, nor in the link name, that tells anyone else which website those links will connect to, nor why they should click on it. You need to provide some context for those links beyond just what's in the post header.

If they are linking to today's RNS on external third party websites, then why? The RNS is available to everyone on this site via the RNS button at the top of this page with a red dot on it (and same for every company page on this site).

Trying to be constructive here but it is infuriating when posters provide blind links to external sites without any context or obvious reason.

Part 2 - putting aside the ISA issue for a moment to keep this point simple, so assuming all HUR shares were held in a regular non-ISA / trading account and were then replaced in that account with DCUs.

My questions is in relation to previous post (re: page 81) - what is “the market value of the Class II DCUs at the Effective Date” that is so vital to both sides of the CGT calculation? They state “i.e. the value of the UK Holder’s right to a future DCU Cash Amount” - but that “value” has to be determined by an NPV equivalent of the maximum 6.48p that each DCU gives entitlement to, not just the full (notional) 6.48p over time. And that “value” per DCU categorically has to be the exact same for every single taxpayer issued with DCUs at the effective date of the scheme, 8 June 2023, for HMRC purposes.

I can’t see anywhere in any document where that “market value” has been stated. In the absence of it, the only two figures we have to go on are:

a) the full 6.48p, and if that is the case then nobody is ever going to record a CGT gain on their DCU - all they will have is the initial CGT gain/loss on the original HUR shares (i.e. 0.83p + 6.48p minus the cost of each share held). I don’t consider this value to be valid as a “market value” for CGT; or

b) 1.65p being the very first value traded on Jenkins on 10 July 23. I’m not accepting that a trade totalling just £375 was indicative of “market value” for all DCUs at that time, and you would only ever know what the market value was by trying to actually trade once the Jenkins option became available on 22 June. And no I’m not accepting the later/current 1.77p as relevant either.

There has never been, to my knowledge, any public notification of a market value specific to the effective date which is when the original CGT calculation absolutely has to refer to. This is needed.

I hope I’m just missing something here that someone can point me to.

TIA

Part 1 - I’m just posting this here for ease of reference, I’ll post my point relating to this next to keep it cleaner.

CGT details copied from page 81 of the scheme document that I mentioned before (I have deleted references to Corporation tax that won’t apply to PIs to keep it simple):

“To the extent that a UK Holder receives Class II DCUs in exchange for their Hurricane Shares, that UK Holder will be treated as making a part disposal of Hurricane Shares for a consideration equal to the market value of the Class II DCUs at the Effective Date (i.e. the value of the UK Holder’s right to a future DCU Cash Amount).

This may, depending on the UK Holder’s individual circumstances (including the UK Holder’s base cost in their holding of Hurricane Shares, and the availability of any exemptions, reliefs or allowable losses), give rise to a liability to UK tax on capital gains.

When that UK Holder receives a payment pursuant to their Class II DCUs (or sells their Class II DCUs), this will be treated as a part (or whole) disposal of those Class II DCUs and may depending on the UK Holder’s individual circumstances (including the UK Holder’s base cost in their holding of the Class II DCUs, and the availability of any exemptions, reliefs or allowable losses), give rise to a liability to UK tax on capital gains. If the actual DCU Cash Amount received by the UK Holder pursuant to their Class II DCUs (or the amount for which they sell their Class II DCUs) is less than the market value of the Class II DCUs at the Effective Date which has been brought into account for tax purposes as part of the initial disposal proceeds of the Hurricane Shares, there may be a capital loss for capital gains purposes.”