Member Info for dflynch

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

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/XTR/eureka-copper-project-phase-2-drilling-update/15133515

Gawdhelpus

Looks like your threat to close your account has worked!

RNS's currently available on LSE

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?

Yes

Two possible scenarios to start the discussion ball rolling as to why the CB holders will sell.

Scenario 1.
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!

Scenario 2.
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.

A "tenner" would not be an unreasonable arbitrage occurrence across the two markets. Will have to see what happens this afternoon, subsequent to the weekend consideration on the other side of the pond!

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.

I don't have access to insider information - therefore I made the calculation based on the information publicly available to the market, from trusted sources!

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.”

Interesting!

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!