Member Info for dflynch

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.

Matched bargain basis.

You have to have a willing Buyer and a willing Seller, an agreed number of DCU's, and an agreed price between them.

Unlike traded shares, were the transaction is between the Seller or Buyer and the Market maker who takes the risk of being able to find a counter-party.

You might as well try to sell them on eBay, the purchaser relying on the ebay guarantee - now there's a thought!

Kever. Congratulsations on your reading achievements, but no need to confirm that which we had already gathered from your contributions.

Ahh! Another one.

If the cap fits - wear it!

Kind and helpful to the last!

So! One more day to trade this share.

What will be the final price when it ceases trading?

"Complete and utter tosh. Your broker is 100% wrong."

Pot kettle and black springs to mind!

:-)

But only 6.02p - anything else is pure future speculation. :-)

Whilst he was in the military he enjoyed the life, he had a pretty good reputation amongst the soldiers. He also had the prospect of enjoying a future life were he could maintain his military connections. Furthermore, he was not short of attractive single women with whom he could share his life.

But like many who have served in combat, the stress can manifest itself at PTSD with, in the worst cases, dark and suicidal thoughts and actions occurring. Perhaps that is what caused him to be caught in the dark web he now finds himelf entangled with.

He may be rehabilitated in the future, but he will have to wrest him self free of the darker parts of his past life if he is to succeed and return to what he was.

That 6.48p could be 0.0p according to PRAX so you can only be sure of getting 6.02p for spending 7.7p.

Don't forget PRAX are only paying 0.83 of their money for HURR - the rest belongs to HURR

Incorrect - but consistent!

If anyone else wishes to e-mail the Judge they should send their e-mail direct to his clerk at the following e-mail address.

supriya.saleem@justice.gov.uk

I also thought it might also be helpful to let other contributors know what I e-mailed to the Judge.

Your Honour,

I am a Hurricane Energy shareholder holding 250,000 shares in a nominee trading account with Interactive Investors. I am thus a beneficial holder of shares rather than someone listed on the share register.

I would like to register my strong opposition to the Scheme of Arrangement proposed by Hurricane Energy and before the court for sanction on 7 June. Many, like myself, believe the scheme to be both unjust and inequitable and has been promoted to the detriment of individual shareholders like me. Specifically, it disadvantages those with shares held in nominee accounts such as mine after being prevented from voting at the Court Meeting on 4 May.

The company is in a sound financial position with no debt and significant assets. But under pressure from its largest shareholder, it embarked on an unnecessary and opaque sales process. The resulting inadequate and highly complex Scheme places all the risk with shareholders and little or none with PRAX (as its the Company’s own money that is used for the initial stages of the sale). The scheme may also result in significant tax liabilities for those individuals who currently hold shares in ISAs and SIPPs, assuming payments from DCUs are actually forthcoming.

Moreover, it is worth noting that the company has previous history in putting before the Courts a deeply flawed and inadequate restructuring plan that was declined by His Honour Judge Zacaroli.

I would urge that Scheme of Arrangement is not sanctioned.

Signed……….

Well tomorrow is the final day in this long sorry sad saga in which many investors who supported the company in its attempt to produce a new source of secure energy for the UK are finlly scammed, and kicked in the face for this support.

They have been badly served by the various members of the BoD, particularly most recently.

It was never necessary to put HURR up for sale! If Crystal Amber wanted out then fine – they could have sold their shares on the open market, as did many small investors who could not risk more awaiting the rewards of their investment. Rewards that are well in sight – why else would PRAX scam investors with their ludicrous below value offer, if they could not also see them.

What is the biggest obscenity in the whole matter is the thousands of small investors in HURR who were disenfranchised from participating in HURR’s future, at the crucial Court meeting on the 4th of May.

Many will have thought that they were voting against the PRAX Scheme. They were not, their voting efforts were ignored, because their shares were held in nominee accounts (SIPP, ISA, Trading) by their brokers. Any protesting voices went unheard!

I have emailed the Court to acquaint the Judge with my concerns as to what is happening and requesting, that like their colleague Mr Justice Zacaroli, that the Court do not sanction this despicable unfair Scheme. A Scheme that is only before the Court because of the unjust way it grossly disadvantaged investors; investors who went unheard at the decisive Court meeting in May.