Rockhopper Exploration plc (AIM: RKH), the oil and gas company with key interests in the North Falkland Basin, confirms that its Half Year Results for the period ended 30 June 2021 will be published on Thursday, 30 September 2021.
As previously announced, the Company is also planning to host a retail investor meeting which will give private shareholders the chance to meet and question management in person.
Provisional arrangements have been made to host the meeting at 2.00 pm on Thursday, 30 September 2021 at the Clubhouse, Skew Bridge, Wilton Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire SP2 9NY. However, in order to maximise the benefit of the event for shareholders, the investor meeting was originally scheduled on the expectation that progress related to the Sea Lion project and/or the Ombrina Mare arbitration would be known by that date. As such, a decision to proceed with, or delay, the investor meeting will be taken and communicated to shareholders on Friday, 24 September 2021.
RNS problem has been around for nearly a week - so don't expect resolution by your dead-line!
Just can't get the staff - they're all doing HGV driving courses for the new career opportunities opening up under this government.
On a more serious note what are the implications for AGL as a result of the announcement?
Two possible scenarios to start the discussion ball rolling as to why the CB holders will sell.
I am a CB holder and I purchased these when issued. My strategy was to earn the interest paid by the CB and then accept the converted shares at maturity on the premise that they would have a higher value in the market. In any event I would receive 10 interest payments equating to 37.5% of the initial purchase price paid. If I accept the offer at 74cents I would not have lost money of the CB purchase transaction – unlike my investment in the shares!
I am a short-term CB holder and I purchased these at the 30% discounted rate September last year. My strategy was to take the remaining 3 interest payments that would equate to a third of the purchase price paid. Trusting that should the company fail, the CB would still hold 30% face value from the liquidation process. I can accept 74cents and walk away with a c50% profit on my initial year-long investment.
Wish all my investments had that AROI!
Happy to read constructive argument as to the merits of the scenarios and motivation of the CB holders. Clearly CB holders are increasingly unlikely to succeed in wresting the company from it's owners - the shareholders.
Based on the lack of any contrary evidence - I am right!
Accept it, as I am sure others are able to. Still more than happy to be proved wrong by reasoned arguement and supporting figures.
At a takeover offer of 6p CA would have made an excellent profit on their investment. And whilst I agree that the value of HUR is much greater than this, CA will be looking at their ROI rather than the future - paticularly as they have to deal with their November meeting.
It should make no difference as to the result.
CA are quite clear about the total cost and number of shares they have purchased in HUR and that is how you calculate the average. They do however make no mention of any purchases of HUR debt.
We are dealing with a regulated investment company and their factual reporting - we are not dealing with Hull City Council and their convuluted housing account calculations!
I did show the calculation process and how the result 3.07p was derived.
It does not require a mathamatical brain to follow the process and I am surprised at your admission " can't be bothered researching" from one who makes many contributions to this BB.
Perhaps you can consult with your mathematical "guru" and ask for his critical analysis of my calculation.
Alternatively can he give us all the benefit of his wisdom, and state the process and figures used in his calculations. This is so that we can understand the 7p figure you would use to "bet the house" on.
On the 19th August CA in their July Net Asset Value notification indicate that their Percentage of investee equity held in Hurricane is 25.4%
CA’s average HUR share price is about 3.07p not 19p or even 7p!
Rough calculation is.
CA shares issued 84 million.
18.4p of each share reflects the NAV attributable to HUR
Therefore, CA’s investment is c£15.46M (84 million shares X 18.4p of attributable value)
This c£15.46M has purchased 25.4% of HUR's 1992million issued shares ie. c 506 million.
The CA investment of c£15.546M divided by shares purchased c506 million gives an average purchase price of c3.07p
This average is lower than the 3.6p average calculated for the end of June – see posting 5 Aug.
Happy to be corrected and further educated!
…….I’ve got a wonderful feeeeeeeling, Stt1’s running away!!
But in which direction will he flee?
His other target BYOT (Byotrol) also reports today.
"Our results for the year to 31 March 2021 were significantly above expectations at the beginning of the year, across all key financial measures. "
Perhaps he will take refuge in with those who fled Kabul and deserted the Afghans in their hour of need!
On the 21st July we were informed that CA held 25.11% of Hurricanes shares.
CA in their July Net Asset Value notification indicate that their Percentage of investee equity held in Hurricane is 22.6%
Have they been selling – or have I once again missed / mis-understood something?
CA’s average HUR share price is about 3.6p not 19p
Rough calculation is.
CA shares issued 84 milion.
19.3p of each share reflects the NAV attributable to HUR
Therefore, CA’s investment is c£16.2M (84 million shares X 19.3p of attributable value)
This c£16.2M has purchased 22.6% of HUR issued shares ie. c 450 million.
The CA investment of c£16M divided by shares purchased c450 million gives an average purchase price of c3.6p
Happy to be corrected and further educated!
“…whatever Hurricane says, there is nothing in the “directors’ fiduciary duties” to compel them into such a one-sided deal.”
So, is there a whiff of failure to fulfil their duties as Directors?
One presumes that Hurricane Energy has thoughtfully paid the premia necessary for the normal insurances taken out to protect Directors of the company from being sued by shareholders!
But might not the insurers pay up if the shareholders were to take action to recover the £17 million wasted?
It certainly would be a useful contribution to the maturity payment in July 2022 / future work plan!
Have a look at this RNS and the Byotrol company's products.
The problem for SABA is that having frustrated the Crystal Amber Continuation Vote it would be necessary to obtain 75% shareholders agreement to support the passing of a Special Resolution to wind up the company.
SABA only have c25% shareholding so whilst they may frustrate a Special resolution, they cannot guarantee the passing of a Special Resolution!
A SABA tactic is to buy stakes in discounted funds (CA) and cajole management into taking steps to reduce the discount. This can be achieved by the fund making tender offers to buy back shares at NAV or a lesser NAV discount to that currently existing or, inter alia, liquidation of the fund.
CA SP is c£1 and NAV discount is c20% and MC of c£84M
SABA controls c 21M CA shares so a Tender buyback =£30M
Just a thought to speculate upon as Hurricane’s SP evolves to its true value.
We live in interesting times!