Member Info for deltavegatheta

If PPP does a RTO is might have to reapply to the FCA for re-admission and be subject to the £30m minimum market cap rule on the Main market, but it is unclear wether that would apply or not.

Also given the total lack of corporate governance by PPP the FCA could well find something else to object to.

The RNS only states that the prospectus will require a General Meeting to approve, it doesn't say it will be published before Lunn asks shareholders to vote on the issue of shares to repay the share lenders.

I think there is very likely that either the RMD deal falls through due to issues with the FCA or if it does go ahead the terms are extremely ugly for PPP shareholders.

"In September 2025, the Group signed a term sheet with Riverfort in respect of a financing facility of up to £1,000,000. The facility, once executed, and should the Company draw down on the facility, is expected to provide additional working capital to support the Group's ongoing activities and to finance projects."

Affrm: "rigs on the ground!"

Reality: "The Company is also receiving an increasing number of legal claims lodged in relation to outstanding oil field service payments to Halliburton, lease payments and historic royalties that have not been paid in the United States. This has resulted in liens on the assets and physical restriction of access to the USA sites."

I'd wait until you see the terms of the deal before you get too excited. I suspect they are going to be really ugly considering PPP's lack of assets.

From the RNS:

“In the event that the Heads of Agreement surrounding the contemplated new business activity, to be approved by shareholders, continues to advance as it currently is, then it is also reasonable to expect that the Company will be forced to remain in suspension pending that transaction completing.”

Some advice: stop insulting each other for 10 minutes and take that time to carefully read and understand the whole RNS.

This looks like a Reverse Takeover to me, given that PPP currently has zero assets on its balance sheet.

Existing shareholders are likely to be left with under 20%, maybe under 10%, of the enlarged company.

I think, but not 100% sure, that this is Mr RMD:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Derrickson

It's certainly not a 6% interest rate or warrants at 4p

RMD's "rescue" of Pennpetro starts to make a lot more sense when you realise this isn't really a loan, it's them positioning to take control of a LSE listing. They're throwing just enough cash to keep the lights on while setting themselves up to convert at rock-bottom prices and grab control through board appointments. Shareholders are basically being presented with a choice, accept massive dilution or watch our investment go to zero. Meanwhile RMD gets a listed vehicle for their Polish assets, operational control, and access to UK capital markets on the cheap. When the Polish asset acquisition terms finally come out, don't be surprised if they're heavily weighted in RMD's favour with more share issuances that dilute shareholders further while keeping most of the upside for themselves through their controlling stake.

Lunn ain't going anywhere:

On 31 December 2024, the Petroquest loan note reached maturity date. On 20 August 2025, Petroquest Energy Limited issued a Corporate Undertaking within which the majority of the Petroquest loan note would be written off and its security over assets held in Nobel Petroleum LLC be released. The balance of the loan will be converted into a 50% stake in Pennpetro USA Corp. This process has not yet been finalised as of the date of approval of these financial statements.

HardToHandle,

Criticism of Evans does not imply love for Lunn. They have both played their part in the downfall of PPP.

Even if Anton did behave like he was on the board, at the end of the day it was the Chairman and CEO’s job to make sure improper things didn’t happen. They were the ones with the responsibility to keep proper oversight, and if Anton was allowed to get away with bad stuff, that’s on them.

Djm1: “Anton and Olaf were also a board members”

Anton has never been on the board of PPP.

I just hope the people bringing the court case stick to the facts and don’t veer into the fanciful conspiracy theories and embellishments pushed by some TG’ers, otherwise they risk losing the judge.

On August 5th, Lunn stated in an RNS: “The AGM notice will include a resolution to cover the serious loss of capital under the Companies Act 2006 as a result of full impairment of the group's leases.”

Here’s what the Companies Act 2006 actually requires:

“1. Where the net assets of a public company are half or less of its called-up share capital, the directors must call a general meeting of the company to consider whether any, and if so what, steps should be taken to deal with the situation.

2. They must do so not later than 28 days from the earliest day on which that fact is known to a director of the company.”

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/section/656

It is now more than 28 days since August 5th. Even if the directors only recognised the issue on that date (which seems unlikely, given the full impairment had already been booked), they are already in breach of the statutory deadline.

This is yet another clear violation of the Companies Act by Lunn (and Menzel).

When a company has debts of over £5m and the books say its got no assets I think you’ll find the creditors are in control.

Zag, the problem is this bit: “Despite GEM representing directly to creditors, the London Stock Exchange and funding invoices directly, the auditors are not prepared to sign off the accounts unless funds are placed into the company's bank account directly.”

Yes an AGM can be called without accounts, but PPP needs to publish all 3 sets of accounts in order to resume trading.

I wonder if Westend are still PPP's accountants?