Have I got that wrong?
From CA's RNS NAV @ 30 Sept
Hurricane has suffered losses of US$111 million equivalent to 4p per share.
Hurricane has tax losses and allowances that would be a material and factor in any corporate transaction. This could be a substantial amount and US$ figures of c468, c707 and c383 are mentioned giving a figure for discussion of circa US$1558 million. This gives an equivalence of 56p per share based on their figures.
Sort of puts the current undervaluation of Hurricanes share into perspective.
Please point out my error because the market doesnt seem to agree with this indicative valuation.
From CA’s RNS
Hurricane is an oil exploration and production company targeting naturally fractured basement reservoirs in the West of Shetland. The Fund has been an investor in Hurricane since 2013 and has to date realised profits of £43 million.
The Fund notes that Hurricane is evaluating options to bolster production from the Lancaster field, as well as pathways towards development of the substantial Lincoln discovery asset. The Fund believes that in addition to the existing P6 well, substantial quantities of oil can be recovered from the Hurricane portfolio.
Together with the $17 million spent on a restructuring plan that both Crystal Amber and more importantly the High Court found to be inappropriate, the Fund estimates that the Company has suffered losses of approximately $111 million, equivalent to more than 4p a share. The Fund believes that an investigation should determine grounds for redress and recoverability of this amount.
The Fund has asked Hurricane to assess the financial implications of these tax losses and allowances in the event of a corporate transaction. The Fund believes that the quantum may be very substantial.
12 months ago, the price of Brent Crude was $37.50 a barrel. It is now $85 a barrel. With production now running at more than 3.5 million barrels per annum, the Fund believes that Hurricane's prospects have been transformed.
I wonder how the market will react to this?
Correct
The problem is with the NOMAD who have stated that they will resign if the current CEO and CFO are removed without suitable replacements.
It would then be necessary to get a new NOMAD and the CEO and CFO replacements acceptable to the new NOMAD.
Far better to get replacement CEO and CFO acceptable to the present NOMAD and then dispense with the services of the present incumbents - particularly if it can demonstrated that their dismissal is a consequence of their performances as directors of the company.
Patience and the ability to deal with interesting times is what is needed here!
Not a mention of BYOTROL!
I wonder if this is why the SP is languishing; or is it because currently the BYOTROL website Product information page / link takes you to https://medi-mark.co.uk/products where you are greeted by the message “Not Found The requested URL /products was not found on this server.”
It’s the AGM on Wednesday morning - perhaps there will be explanations then as to the low profile the company has in the investment market and its consequential effect on the SP!
Careful - stack exchange information is based on American law practice
And as a reminder; the Companies Act 2006 specifies the general duties owed by a director of a company to the company.
S171 - Duty to act within powers
S172 - Duty to promote the success of the company
S173 - Duty to exercise independent judgment
S174 - Duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence
S175 - Duty to avoid conflicts of interest
S176 - Duty not to accept benefits from third parties
S177 - Duty to declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangement
I don’t know if this is a relevant channel to travel in bringing the previous non-executive directors to account!
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reporting-misconduct-by-companies-directors-and-bankrupts-to-the-insolvency-service/reporting-misconduct-by-companies-directors-and-bankrupts-to-the-insolvency-service
Particularly the following extracts.
The Insolvency Service has powers given to it by law to consider complaints about:
• live companies where we’ve received reports of serious corporate abuse such as significant misconduct, fraud, scams or sharp practice in the way the company operates
Anybody can report misconduct relating to the above to us.
We will assess any information reported to us and consider whether to carry out further investigations.
We may take further action against the bankrupt, director or company if we find things that concern us during our investigations.
We can only investigate complaints that we have the legal powers to deal with and may suggest you contact another public body or pass your concerns on ourselves if this is appropriate. Please make it clear in your complaint if you don’t want us to do this.
If our enquiries show that a criminal offence may have been committed, we may send a report to the appropriate prosecuting authority (eg the police or our Criminal Investigations Team). That authority will then decide whether to carry out a criminal investigation, and criminal proceedings may begin. You may be asked to give a formal statement before proceedings start.
If you wish to make an anonymous complaint, we may still be able to submit the matter to the relevant investigating authority. However, please note that they may only be able to take further action if they have suitable evidence or an appropriate witness, or both.
Don't see a further tender offer for the bonds but perhaps CA is in the market for them?
It would reflect their confidence in the maturity payment being made and be a nice little earner for a c10 month investment at the present discount.
Could be that some other party has a similar thoughts?
Interesting times!
The reporting will be for the period up to the 30 June 2021.
The extension may have allowed the new auditors to get a better feel for the company. Consequently, if asked by the authors of the report, the auditors might be in a position to give guidance on the tone and content.
But somehow I doubt it!
Just an observation
“…has signalled its intention to vote against continuation and to reorganise, reconstruct, or wind up the Company.”
Intention – relevant at the time the statement was made as Hurricane’s prospects were precarious. Subsequently the Hurricane scam was rejected by the Courts, oil price has increased markedly, World economics are changing rapidly and so have the prospects of Hurricane. CA continues to increase its Hurricane investment. What is happening between SABA and CA we are not privy too. It was my intention to fly around the World next year – but will it happen? Things change! So much for past intent becoming reality!
Reorganise – this would allow CA to reconfigure the fund structure whilst retaining its investment in certain preferred investments with a view to enhance long-term shareholder value through active engagement with companies.
Reconstruct – change from an AIM-listed activist fund investing predominantly in small and mid-cap UK equities to a major oil and energy fund exploiting opportunities to enhance fund shareholder value through active long-term engagement with companies.
Wind up the Company –The present Discounted NAV might be in excess of what would be obtained in the event of the investments being liquidated. I refer to the problems faced by N Woodford of this parish when it was necessary to turn fund investments into cash!
It is the old Chinese curse once again – we live in interesting times!
I have sent the following as e-mails to both NED's.
It is quite evident that the Board of Directors have previously failed to act correctly in their stewardship of Hurricane Energy plc and the best interests of shareholders. This failure occurred during the period June 2020 and the resignation of the then chairman and non-executive directors in July 2021.
The proposed financial restructuring plan, to dilute shareholder value in-order to favour holders of the company’s debt, was proved to be without merit, and consequently failed to gain the approval of the courts. Unfortunately, the creation and attempt to seek court approval of this nonsensical plan proved costly – reportedly $17M. Perversely it is the shareholders, the potential victims of the Board’s plan, who have had to bear this nugatory financial expenditure.
Clearly much happened during the period that the Board formulated and produced the plan, and whilst they could at the time claim commercial confidentiality, with the Court’s rejection of the plan this is no longer the case. Consequently, it is now reasonable for shareholders to expect a detailed explanation from the current Board on this wasteful expenditure of shareholder capital, and the action the Board intend to take to recover it.
I am aware that the company’s largest shareholder, Crystal Amber Fund, has written to the Hurricane Board using Article 94 of the company's articles of association to request that a committee (comprising the non-executive directors) be established with a mandate to investigate what happened and to engage external advisers (should that be needed) for the investigation. The committee would then make a recommendation to the Hurricane Board.
Given my deep concerns as a shareholder regarding the matter, I would strongly support their request.
This should not be happening as there is the definite potential for a conflict of interest - in my opinion. The auditors were dispensed with so why were the legal advisors retained?
I would also now question the circumstances leading to the change in the original offer?
I could speculate as to the actions of the Board's chairman in establishing the current and future integrity of the executive directors - but we live in interesting times and so will await events.
I would imagine that any third party will keep their powder dry until Tuesday's Board recommendation and then make a knockout offer!
The parties in auction have to be aware that they are not only bidding against each other, but also a potential third party, who must be kept out of the process by being unable to match their bids.
We live in interesting times!
Intriguing – yes. But necessary, as to dispense with them in July would have caused immense difficulties in maintaining Hurricane on the AIM market. The implied threat of their removal, without ready replacements, could have resulted in all the work done to enable the company to survive and prosper being nugatory effort.
“Keep your friends close and your enemies closer” is a fitting maxim for the current situation. Particularly if CA pursues, as I very much hope they do, a closer investigation and prosecution of any discovered “wrong doings.” Recovery of the money wasted on the “scam” would be useful in settling the CB payment at maturity next year.
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.
https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/BEM/letter-to-minister-baylan/15133606