We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
The reason that O’Cathain, as Independent non-executive Chairman, wants to replace the two non-executive directors is to conform to “good governance” criteria. The criteria referenced requires that the majority of the Board should be non-executive directors, who are required to safeguard the interests of shareholders, by holding the executive directors to account!
Prior to the AGM the make-up of the Board was two executive directors, Messrs Stuart and Holland, and three non-executive directors, Messrs O’Cathain, Oddie and Williams.
It should be borne in mind that the company has 12 employees and it is questionable why this necessitates a Board of 5 directors!
The retreat from the Board of Messrs Oddie and Williams reversed the desired “good governance” criteria post the AGM.
In seeking to regain the “good governance” status the Chairman considered that simple replacement of two non-executives would be sufficient. Clearly the interests of shareholders were not being considered as they would once again have to bear the expense. An expense that they had succeeded in reducing that morning.
Furthermore, with regard to the expense to shareholders of the Board the only criteria that needs to be considered, in their remuneration, is the result of the Boards performance in increasing the value of the company, as reflected in the share price.
The future intentions of the Board to increase the value of the company are lamentable.
- Why continue with the Inishkea prospect when it is admitted that it will be nigh on impossible to acquire a sufficiently financially endowed farm-in partner, given the impaired reputation that the Eire government has within the O&G sector?
- Why continue with Cloughton given the National Parks restriction on drilling? The alternate plan requires the Duke of Lancaster’s agreement and that is unlikely to be forthcoming unless the Duchess agrees to become a non-executive director – unlikely!
- Why Africa, are better prospects not available nearer to home?
It was quite clear that the Board is past its sell by date. It needs to be refreshed. Perhaps an EGM is necessary to obtain the necessary clear-out.
The most impressive thing about the AGM was the considerable knowledge and experience of shareholders who attended, and challenged, the Board in regard to their performance. There is still hope – but quick and decisive action will be required.
If you have shares in a Nominee account you are not the LEGAL owner of them.
The LEGAL owner is the Nominee and if they care to loan them out it is there decision / risk.
Those who hold shares in Nominee accounts are BENEFICIAL owners of the share - that is they have an economic interest in the share. Many shareholders have fallen foul of this HURRICANE SIRUS minerals to name but two.
Me too! But I'd rather that the shares hadn't been "stolen" from me!
Price of Brent, development off Shetland etc etc and still had the shares!
Guess Senseman was on the correct track after all!
Looks like some contributors are going to be correct in regard to the discussions last year!
But the BoD and City "whiz kids" ignored them, and the wrong decision was made for HURR's long-term investors!
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uks-rosebank-oil-field-development-gets-go-ahead-2023-09-27/
Well done those concerned. it's a shame your hard work wasn't recognized by the plebs and low life trolls.
They know who they are!
4 September 2023
Tremor International Ltd
("Tremor" or the "Company")
Response to Press Speculation
The Board of Tremor notes the recent press speculation and confirms that it is not currently in a sale process.
As noted in Tremor's announcement on 15 March 2023, from time to time the Company receives inquiries and the Board evaluates such inquiries, as applicable, with its financial advisor. The Board continues to believe in the stand-alone prospects of the business, and also recognizes its fiduciary duties to its shareholders.
A further announcement will be made if and when appropriate.
For further information please contact:
Shell (SHEL.L) will supply Morocco with an annual 0.5 billion cubic metres (bcm) of liquefied natural gas (LNG) under a 12-year deal, the North African country's energy ministry said on Friday.
The deal was signed by electricity and water utility ONEE and Shell, a ministry statement said without disclosing financial terms of the transaction.
The gas will be transported from Spanish ports initially, using a gas pipeline that links the two countries, until Morocco builds its own LNG terminals, the ministry said.
So where do SHELL get the gas from? Somewhere local seems the best idea - and at some future point perhaps!
ASI: 1912
"...no longer a legal entity ..."
Oh really?
As the BB's pedant I would have expected greater accuracy from you!
Or is the definition of a legal entity different in the world of Walter Mitty ?
Kever says, “Given the first small DCU payment is due in Sept I would expect the DCU's to start trading at 0.5p / 1p”
They can’t be traded; they are a straight Sale and Purchase transaction between matched counter parties who agree to the amount and value of the transaction. The matched bargain facility description provides the clue.
The value of the DCU according to the previous optimists on this board is 6.5p.
But this value has to be discounted over the 3-year period to final maturity date using, say, a DCF of 10% to obtain the NPV. Also, it is necessary to factor in the risk-likelihood of the payments actually materialising! These factors will determine the value of the DCU at a point in time, when matched Sales and Purchases can occur.
So Kever might be correct, or even, as ever, very optimistic in being able to sell them at 0.5 / 1p in September.
Would someone with more patience than me please educate the fool in basic finance, and encourage him not to display his ignorance on bulletin boards. VMT
19:50
You were right NST - (s)he didn't get it!
They paid 0.83p per share. The rest of the payment belonged to the scammed shareholders and not to PRAX!
All future payments would have belonged to shareholders, in the normal course of events.
But more importantly, those payments would not have been restricted to a maximum of 6.5p per share!
From the GCM Board
RE: 2.5p Placing!!!
RNS Today 08:15
Tang you are a absolute disgrace just like most rich selfish people I know
"...and how small your portfolio must be. "
Never heard it called that before!
We thought it might be.
But the post was from you so, we couldn't be sure!
Why should a private company publicise details of it's commercial operations?
Just saying
The dividends paid as part of the Scheme total 5.19p.
They are, for tax purposes, Income and will be treated by HMRC as such during the Tax year 23/24.
The Income in SIPP and ISA's will escape any taxation as normal. Others will pay income tax according to their individual circumstances regarding income from other dividend paying entities.
The cash consideration is 0.83p per share and that is what PRAX is paying for seizing the shares on the cheap.
It is not a dividend, therefore not Income. It is a “Capital” transaction amount and will be taxed as such under the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) regime.
Therefore, if shares were purchased for an amount greater than 0.83p then a CGT loss will have been incurred, which can be set off against any CGT liability during Tax year 23/24, and subsequent Tax years. For those holding shares in ISA’s they will not be able to use this CGT loss. I am uncertain about CGT in SIPP’s
Deferred Consideration Units ("DCUs") describes what the hypothetical future payment is. The clue is in the name – Consideration. It is not Income it is again a “Capital” transaction that should have been paid together with the 0.83p. The Deferred bit denotes the delay in PRAX making the payment when seizing the shares.
However, for the moment consider the case where payments are made. They would be payments of capital, and therefore would be treated as a CGT gain. This gain can be set off against the years CGT allowance, or any CGT losses brought forward from previous years eg the CGT loss on only receiving 0.83p on the share seizure.
For shareholders who previously held their investment in ISA’s the CGT gain cannot be set off against the CGT loss under ISA rules as indicated earlier. I am uncertain about SIPP’s.
Not having a direct line to HM Treasury or HMRC, like some, I would do your own research on the matter as I do not offer financial advice.
Really?
You don't provide a copy, or a link, to the document you claim to have received from the HMRC.
More importantly you don't give the HMRC reference and the contact details of the HMRC signatory to this document.
Please explain this lack of information that would allow independent verification.