Member Info for Corryvreckan1

From a quick, whisky aided, skim read through the Administrators’ Proposal:

Serica’s Phase One offer to buy PUL was just £1 !!!

However, completion of the deal now at £14.5m (subject to inclusion of a £1m retention) is perhaps the best likely outcome we can hope for at this stage. Important to note that there are further confirmation stages to go through prior to conclusion, expected by the end of the year, so not yet guaranteed.

Potential for Prax E&P to receive some distribution from the administration of Prax Treasury Ltd, if available and amount and timing unknowable for now, which would help any pay-out to DCUs.

I can’t see any specific mention of the 17.5% on sale proceeds from Serica being due to DCUs *, perhaps though due to the obligation not arising until the deal completes? I think this needs to be confirmed as part of the DCU creditor claim due to the legal obligation under the Deed Poll. That still wouldn’t mean DCUs receiving all of that claim, it would just be part of their claim against the total realisable assets of Prax E&P, which would include those proceeds at a future date.

* However, they do state a total unsecured creditor for DCUs of c.£8.5m which matches the expected 30/9 payment (2bn x £0.003 = £6m) plus the 17.5% x £14.5m from Serica (£2.54m) so maybe that is where they have factored it in without mentioning it. If so then it already excludes the possibility of the post 1/7 offloads accruing to DCUs…

Thank you both, just to add to those points:

- Link direct to CH filings in my post below on 10/10.

- It was highlighted before that the Serica announcement stated an “Economic date” for the Prax UL transaction of 1st July. That might suggest that the deal could be backdated on completion and therefore all offloads since then (July 12, Sept 24 and any other to follow) might accrue to Serica and not Prax?

However, I’ve not seen that officially confirmed anywhere so it’s down to the interpretation of “Economic date”. The Administrators’ Proposals does not refer to that date anywhere (that I can see) stating only “The Exchange Date of the Transaction was 29 September 2025…”. So as DiveCentre says it’s bit unclear at the moment (however, see end of my next post as well).

Ron - “The administrators said that it was the responsibility of such nominees to file claims on behalf DCU holders and suggested that individual holders contact their fund managers (nominees) to request them to file claims on their behalf.”

-absolutely, if anyone has not yet had communication from their broker about the administration then get onto them quickly to ensure they are registering a claim on your behalf. Lloyds Bank (including Halifax and iWeb) not being listed as creditors is odd, although they may use a different named nominee company?

And some further very helpful commentary posted on the other forum by fat frank this morning (cheers frank) that confirms much of what we have discussed on here.

The full Adminstrator’s Proposal is now available to download from Companies House, 57 page pdf:

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12157790/filing-history

Yeah, so as you will have gathered from the discussions on here that £0.003 was per the previous early notification of a payment that was due on the 30th but which is no longer going to happen. HL will update you in the future once more details are known but the administrator has indicated that could take “a number of months”.

And both DiveCentre and myself have already posted about that on here over the last week!

ii provided a very brief corporate action notice this morning that didn’t state anything we don’t already know and to wait for further communication from them.

The Administrators Proposals that I mentioned twice before have now been filed at Companies House and I expect they may be available for anyone to download in the next day or two. That will get you up to date with the situation and as summarised by rahosi on the other forum.

Thanks DiveCentre and thank you rahosi for the initial post, very helpful.

I’m amazed that CS ran the cheques without receiving funds but that might be part of their service agreement with Prax, so I stand corrected on my previous points about timing of payments to them which on reflection contained too much of an assumption.

Good to see Teneo confirm my previous posts that there are no secured creditors they know of against amounts due to DCUs (although their wording does leave open other possibilities) and that at least some payment is perhaps likely although it will take time to resolve the exact amount.

For anyone not directly registered as a creditor a more detailed version of the Administrators Proposals should be publicly available via Companies House in due course, once they have compiled the relevant data.

Chatboardnovice – good that you have spoken with your broker but can I ask what the exact words they used were?

Have you read my post below on 5th Oct at 11.58am, the first three paragraphs replying to Gazelleman?

It would be very interesting and happy news to other forum users if HL are now saying that payment WILL BE made (and when) as that would be a change to the current situation. Please be very precise about this as some details are not yet clear from other sources and we are relying on clear information where possible.

Thank you

DiveCentre - Yes, and they have previous with that same behaviour so it was fully expected and anticipated…it’s almost like the weasel fell into an obvious trap…

See my post below at 11:57 – Deed Poll free to download from link to Prax website.

All of my posts on this website are solely IMHO based on personal research and analysis and do not constitute financial or legal advice. Always DYOR and cross check anything posted here to primary official sources. I am always open to correction if I have unintentionally misinterpreted or misrepresented anything.

Some of my last three posts may help answer some of the queries on the other forum - from fat frank, rahosi and ole in particular. Happy for a link to this thread to be posted across (rather than the full text) by someone if you wish.

https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.html?ShareTicker=HUR&share=HUR.L&thread=EA90068F-339F-4DC9-A0D4-2FA1B08327D3

Other than that – and I am disappointed that this has become necessary - I withhold all permission for use of my copyrighted material in any other form or place. If I catch anyone else using lazy AI generated content that is then presented and includes any part of my posts taken out of context, I will ask LSE Admin to take action against them.

If you are using AI you absolutely have to make that clear - you have to state which AI tool you have used and also state the original question or premise that you fed into it. That allows others to see full context and to either replicate or refine/amend the process as necessary.

-/ End rant and best wishes to all ;o)

Gazelleman – your reply from ii “The payment for September we are expecting but we have not yet had confirmed details. We await confirmation, and when we do we will send communication to all our clients”. Seems positive to me. See what transpires next week then.”

- sorry to disappoint but the Brokers will have been notified in advance of the payment expected solely to help them reconcile and credit accounts on the due day (their “we are expecting” the same as AJ Bell issued to their clients the week before) but they know no more than we do here about what’s happened since, until they receive an update from the Administrator this week.

Their “We await confirmation…” is just a non-committal place holder to give them time; the administration now legally needs to go through official due process as set out in the Insolvency Act before payments can be released, if at all, and the timetable for that is unknown at this time.

----------

As DiveCentre posted it is important to keep in contact with your broker and check their corporate action notices so that you receive the updates as they come through the nominee account. If you hold DCU certificates for cheque payment you should be contacted directly/via CS.

The payment that was due last week (0.3p per DCU) and the 17.5% of the future sale proceeds from Serica (est. 0.127p) should both form the creditor claim for DCUs. The other claims and the assets available are all still unquantifiable until advised by the Administrator in due course.

The Serica deal is due to complete by the end of the year subject to regulatory approval, so any payout may need to wait until that is done, unless the administrator has enough visibility to make an interim dividend (part-payment) if available. What %/£ that might be, if anything, is unknowable at this time.

Catching up on several points:

The Deed Poll, Scheme Doc and other items are all available to download from Prax via the link provided by Redacted on Friday – suggest anyone concerned quickly download any PDFs of relevance in case it gets blocked. https://www.prax.com/information-for-holders-of-dcus/

Section 6 on page 12 of the Deed Poll – Obligations of the company [Prax E&P plc] to DCU holders - is where some protection of DCUs resides and which might provide some hope, and may be worth mentioning in any emails sent to the administrator?

----------

Alessandro Agostini is noted as “Head of Exploration and Production” on the JP Jenkins DCU page, not sure how up to date that is.

----------

RodneyT – “I guess cash could have been received by CS, cheques sent and then administration was annnounced? Instant change of situation and obligations legally. 'Stranded Asset' created?”

- Exactly that and I noted similar last Wednesday. The payment would have been transferred to CS by the Directors prior to administration on the 29th so would not have needed approval first (although the administrator would be aware of it via their appointed Director) and cheques likely posted around Friday 26th. The cash is now in limbo at best, returned to Prax E&P perhaps also possible (less any costs possibly deducted by CS!).

The timing just one day before payment was due, without any communication, is both appalling and telling!

----------

DiveCentre - “The question is whether the Prax E&P administration is separate to the Lindsey Oil liquidation because if it is we might possibly, and I emphasise possibly get some future payment. If they are connected then as unsecured creditors we will get nothing due to the secured HMRC debt.”

- Completely separate to Lindsey liquidation but is connected to the State Oil Ltd administration (that’s maybe what you meant?) through inter-company balances and SOL (Teneo) as shareholder of Prax E&P plc. The direct creditors of SOL including HMRC have no call on Prax E&P assets by default beyond the settlement of those balances, unless unknown guarantees were in place. It is the connections to SOL and also to the previous Prax Treasury function that need to be first resolved to determine anything remaining and the outcome for DCUs, IMO.

It is hoped that any guarantees are not treated as disadvantaging DCUs under Section 6 of the Deed Poll.

Teneo have not yet updated the home page on the Prax website but the ‘Appointment of an administrator’ form, effective 29/09/25, was filed at Companies House on Friday and the company status now changed from ‘Active’ to ‘In Administration’, so it’s now publicly official.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/12157790

The next key documents will be the Administrator’s Proposals and the Statement of Affairs which will appear there in the days/weeks ahead.

As Prax E&P appeared to be just an intermediate holding company I don’t expect the initial process of identifying creditors and the liquidity position will take too long, unless they have created something convoluted during preparation for the failed GLA deal, or the connections to State Oil Ltd are taking longer to identify and clarify.

And ii are normally reliable for payment of any dues on the day received. No sign of other online brokers crediting either and cheques are just pieces of paper until banked and funds transferred. If Prax E&P did go into Admin on Monday then that would be after the cheques were posted by Computershare.

Still no confirmation of the Admin through any official channel but the legal firm that advised Prax on the sale are also stating “Prax Exploration & Production Plc (in Administration)”.

Thanks Rodney, I had completely missed that Economic Date!

Regarding the sale proceeds, from the Deed Poll:

“Net Revenues (USD)”

means, in respect of a Half-Year, the Gross Revenues (USD) less: (i) any reasonable fees and/or costs properly incurred by the Hurricane Energy Group in respect of:

(a) the transportation downstream of the Lancaster FPSO of the Relevant Hydrocarbons the revenues from which are taken into account in calculating the Gross Revenues (USD);

(b) the transportation of such Relevant Hydrocarbons (other than those from the Lancaster Field) downstream of facilities which the Hurricane Energy Group (in its capacity as such) has responsibility under the Petroleum Act 1998 (as amended from time to time) to decommission;

(c) other freight, port charges, inspection and testing and outturn losses in respect of such Relevant Hydrocarbons; and

(d) marketing of such Relevant Hydrocarbons,

(ii) any portions of revenue over which third parties have royalties or net profit rights or arrangements which rights or arrangements existed prior to such Relevant Hydrocarbons being acquired by the Hurricane Energy Group,

“Gross Revenues (USD)” means, in respect of a Half-Year:

[…]

(c) in the event of a Relevant Disposal, the proceeds thereof actually received within that Half Year (including the full value of any non-cash proceeds, which shall be determined in accordance with Condition 7 in the event of a dispute)

“Relevant Disposal”

means the direct or indirect sale or other disposal either (i) by the Company or other member of the Prax Group of Hurricane Energy, or (ii) by Hurricane Energy or any member of the Hurricane Energy Group of any Asset (or any interest therein), other than Relevant Hydrocarbons in the ordinary course of business and other than to a member of the Hurricane Energy Group"

Hurricane Energy since having been renamed Prax Upstream Ltd.

What am I missing here?

See below, potential doubts already highlighted but all still unknown.

I don’t think Serica should have made that statement about Prax E&P in the presentation this morning, it’s not their place to do that and they have no jurisdiction over Prax E&P plc. They did state in the RNS “Prax Exploration & Production Plc (in Administration)” which I hoped was a mistake, but that may have blindsided Teneo and there is still no notification via any official source of this.

* never has been at any time for Prax E&P.

Yeah, this is the unknown at the moment. But if there were secured creditors then there should be a charge registered at Companies House and there never has been at any time for PUL. The next step down then is the potential for inter-company guarantees as previously highlighted by ronwoking, or excess unsecured debt taken on that would at least squeeze any DCU payout.

Littlened: D- and detention ;o) Serica have no obligations to DCUs because they have taken Hurricane out of Prax E&P which is where the obligation exists. They are not buying the whole Upstream Division. They have confirmed this at 29 mins in the presentation.

Presentation:

https://www.investormeetcompany.com/meetings/investor-presentation-924

According to Serica, Prax E&P went into Administration yesterday (29min 20s in) - can't see that officially confirmed anywhere yet...

Yes, by buying Hurricane out of Prax the remaining DCU obligations stay within Prax E&P, including the 17.5% due to DCUs on the asset sale.

There has still been no public notification of any restrictions on that within Prax resulting from the administration of State Oil Ltd, hopefully there is nothing on the blind side.

No further DCU payments would arise beyond March 26 if the deal goes through this year.