Member Info for Corryvreckan1

Jackinabox - if it's a SB a/c they sometimes adjust your margin available to 'bet' in anticipation of an amount receivable. They can just as quickly reduce it if they don't receive the anticipated funds.

'Adjusted' is not the same as 'received'.

The court case verdict still needs to be submitted to and accepted by the Registrar of Companies before it is official, it states that in the GM Circular. It is possible they may even have to wait for the written verdict from the court before they can submit it to the Registrar, but I'm not certain on that.

-_-

ASI – help me out here if you could please? I’m exploring this ‘boring financial technicality flaw’ type thingy that I identified yesterday and the CA 2006 rules may be relevant to resolving part of it. Can you provide a link to, or even just the section number from the Act you are looking at please? I have searched different ways on the quote you provided yesterday and it appears to be from an American article that was predominantly about returns from mutual funds and accounting for them to the IRS.

I’m pretty sure the IRS don’t (yet) have jurisdiction over the UK so it would be good to know what you are seeing in the CA 2006 that might help me.

TIA

British - that's American tax law in that article. Not sure the same applies here?

Talking of which...

Apologies all.

Although it is not incorrect, I retract my post at 15:05 - please ignore. Not because of the Companies Act, but because I have spotted a flaw in my argument that is presented by the word “and” after “distributable reserves” in the quote from the GM Circular. I won’t elaborate here because it’s a boring financial technicality.

My previous posts on this matter all still stand.

Regardless, ANY return or distribution, by any means, will need to be specifically notified in advance, by RNS and not via broker emails, to ALL shareholders at the same time. As I have said since after the GM – we still await confirmation of what the future holds pending conclusion of the FSP, one way or another.

ASI - “a return of capital isn't a dividend”
It can be, there are two ways (maybe more) to define a return of capital.

The Board have actually described it as [potentially] “a capital return programme”.

The GM Circular also states:
“The Reduction of Capital will if it becomes effective have the effect of creating distributable reserves and, subject to the financial performance of the Company and the Act, provide the Company with the ability to make distributions of profits by way of dividend and/or to make purchases of its own shares as permitted by the Act.”

Mals1960
No, it’s not enough, because that’s not what the RNS (I presume you mean the one issued 2nd November?) actually said.

The same RNS also stated “In the event that the FSP does not result in a transaction, the Board intends to commence a significant capital return programme…”

Therefore, as the FSP is still in progress there can be no capital return at this time, nor if there is a successful transaction. We still await confirmation of a conclusion to the FSP, 'successful' or otherwise.

Also, the court hearing is not directly related to the capital return, it is solely related to the Reduction of Capital on the company Balance Sheet which is completely different.

As well as the RNS you also have to read the GM Circular, particularly page 5, under the heading “Court Approval” - the first paragraph and the final two paragraphs of that section are key.

It is still available to read on the Hurricane website:
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/investors/general-meetings

"This has been confirmed by our Corporate Actions team with the provider..."

Any chance you could forward their reply to the provider, i.e. Hurricane, and ask for their comment on that?

If you were due to receive 3.1p per share this week then Hurricane would have to issued an RNS advising every shareholder of that, not some insider information for the privilege of just one broker's customers.

I concur with the last 2 posts, except to add that I don’t think they are speculating, I think they are misinterpreting what has been communicated in the past.

Has anyone who has received one of these emails asked their broker why they are issuing something that is at odds with the official announcements from Hurricane (RNS and GM Circular)?

And as fandg2 suggests has anyone forwarded their broker email to Hurricane to ask for their views? Like it or not, Hurricane will be tainted by association when hordes (4, maybe 5) of angry (miffed) shareholders descend (email) on their brokers (jokers) the following week demanding (politely enquiring) to know why they haven’t received the 3.1p per share their email advised of. Some PIs may be too quick to blame Hurricane for the misinformation, rather than correctly directing their ire at their broker.

Bibzy7 (and anyone else wondering) – nobody is getting 3p per share from Hurricane, nor any other value, into your account at anytime next week. It is impossible for that to happen under the current situation. If you were budgeting for that to pay your leccy bill then best have a Plan B in place.

Oldman45 – generally agreed, but if I may add to your post that share buybacks are also a possibility, and they would reduce/eliminate the amount available to pay out directly as cash.

The Companies Act is, thankfully, putting a stop to that. They can’t offer a price to just one shareholder, it has to be available to all.

Otherwise that would leave just a pittance split between 1.4bn shares = breadcrumbs for the rest. Your query suggests 86% (60/70) of the potential distribution going to a holder of just 29% of the shares.

Not happening.

The vote doesn’t, in itself, release any ‘funds’ (cash), it’s just permits a Balance Sheet adjustment that gives the company the ability to subsequently release cash (from the $122m + net from future uplifts) to shareholders by way of a capital return programme.

Prior to the vote and pending court approval the company could not distribute any of its net free cash as they only had accumulated losses on the balance sheet. A company cannot legally distribute cash to shareholders unless they have positive distributable reserves.

By cancelling the Share Premium account ($822.5m) and crossing that with the accumulated losses ($645.2m per the circular in December) they create a ‘distributable reserves’ balance on the Balance Sheet. That’s what the vote achieves, nothing more. It’s a paper non-cash adjustment to meet a legal requirement.

Assuming court approval is granted next week (exact date was never confirmed, 31 Jan was “estimated/anticipated”) then the company can make the necessary book-keeping entry on the Balance Sheet and subsequently, if they choose to, start making returns to shareholders.

But the returns can’t start until we know where the FSP is heading.

The capital return is paid out off free cash (either to us by cash divi, or paid to sellers in a share buyback), it's not added to it.

Capital reduction (per GM vote) is different to the capital return (potentially up to $70m).

The Capital reduction is just a paper exercise on the Balance Sheet to cancel the Share Premium Account ($822.5m *) and create distributable reserves, it doesn't in itself generate any new cash.

* noelpbz - is this your $82m with a typo?

Depends, if they were Conference pears then they might have a bit more credibi...whhaaattt???!!

Also: "It is in simple terms a 1000 year cycle that repeats time after time right through earths history."
This: https://xkcd.com/1732/

Buyback hasn't been formally announced yet. They will need to issue an RNS detailing the terms of any shareholder returns (divi/buyback) before they start. They also have to pay off the bonds by the end of this quarter before commencing returns.

It will come...

It's a buy, late reported from after close yesterday.

31st Jan, on their calendar now.

https://www.wickesplc.co.uk/investors/investors-overview/financial-calendar/

"On the upside, it was never 'improved' in decades xD"

Yeah, rub it in why don't you, sitting there with yer Luddite app that still does all the same things in the same places as the last time you used it :o(

I have now downgraded my “not impressed” with ii to several words that the LSE censors won’t allow me to post!

Agree the guidance seems a bit light, it's the old under promise/over deliver (hopefully) scenario. Also stated that they don't forecast the ONP to be available this year but if it does come back online, particularly when river levels are lower, then it could help Q3/Q4. Before that the targeted improvement to barge turn around time is a key element in the short term.

Investor warrants price is 16 pence, expire 18 June this year. Performance warrants price is $0.1869.