Member Info for deltavegatheta

People have posted that several times and I have asked for the company names, no-one has so far named any

Wether Tom has lied in RNSs or not is a matter for debate, but what is fact is that Tom is currently being investigated by the Resources Bonds 11 Ltd liquidators for "breaches by the directors of their statutory and fiduciary duties, leading to various claims against the directors. Solicitors have been instructed and initial letters before action have been issued".

Olof is also being investigated.

And yes Lunn has a clear conflict of interest.

So they all stink.

Affirm, how can GV buy the leases before the Petroquest debt is paid off?

I think the CH web page is a typo, the page says it summarises the Companies Act but the Companies Act just says before a General Meeting, as does the articles.

“The directors of a public company must lay before the company in general meeting copies of its annual accounts and reports.”

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/15/chapter/8

If it is real it is missing the resolution to approve the accounts. Here's the one from the last AGM:

"To receive and consider the Annual Report and Accounts for the period ended 31 December

2022 together with the Directors' Report and Auditors' Report thereon."

Here's Evans's wording (via TG):

"Once again he's shoe horned in a statement about a" secured" interest of the petroquest facility- at best it could only have been against COG1 leases."

He clearly isn't sure exactly what the situation is. Also according to PPP's IPO prospectus, PPP initially acquired 1,800 acres, so a lot more than just the COG1 site.

The terms would have to be equivalent to having a mortgage and being allowed to sell your house without paying the debt off. That would be very unusual and against the basic principles of secured loans.

That Apple case is an oddball, perhaps Anton was behind with his iPhone repayments, I see it is the Probate court, so probably to do with Lunn being Anton's executor.

All the leases were being sold to GV and the PQ debt was secured by at least some of them.

How could the terms of the agreement (I assume you mean the SPA) allow it? It is now clear that the Petroquest debt was to remain with PPP.

I am very puzzled as to how Tom thought he could sell the leases to GV as Petroquest's loan is secured against them. It's a very difficult situation to resolve without issuing loads of shares to pay off Petroquest, which isn't possible at the moment.

ExMS, the only explanation I can think of is that PPP desperately needed the money due to creditors. The max shares that could be issued without a prospectus was about 8m and suspect it had to be at 9p min in order to raise enough money.

Now that the raise failed and there are even more creditors it is not a good omen for what is to come.

All things PPP always resolve down to Anton(now Lunn), Philip Henderson & David Shaw in some way that's impossible to decipher.

Timbo, agreed, I think it would have to be at 9p. The only people that might pay 9p are the people that are owed 48 million shares by PPP as they have the most to loose if PPP goes pop.

If the placing had raised all the money PPP needed, they would have announced the results by now, similarly if there were no bidders. So, I think the placing raised, say, half the funds PPP requires, and PPP is currently trying to raise the other half and/or negotiate with creditors. I suspect PPP can’t take the placing money if it doesn’t fix any solvency issues as it could be regarded as wrongful trading. Maybe the pressure will result in a deal that does satisfy all the creditors, even Petroquest, and allows the GV to proceed.

If anyone says PPP has no solvency issues then they haven’t read & understood the recent RNSs.

Until PPP pays GEM off the threat remains. Maybe PPP are currently counting all the proceeds from the auction and can now pay GEM off. But if the auction failed to raise enough money PPP will be consulting its advisers “to ensure it is staying within its solvency parameters” (as per RNS)

The RNS literally said PPP faced a winding up order. The last RNS said the money was to be used to pay off creditors.

I suspect Lunn had no choice with GEM threatening to call for the company to be wound up if they didn’t receive their cash.

This isn't an AIM company asking for authority to issue shares, as a Main market company issuing over 20% it would need to publish a FCA approved prospectus which would cost loads and force them to declare all known issues.

Remember that previously shareholders chose to lend PPP 48 million shares rather than issue a prospectus.

Dafad, that’s an interesting call that they hold back 4m for the BYOF offer, would avoid needing to issue a prospectus. But 18p a tad optimistic.

9p, expect I won't be the only one this time