Member Info for dflynch

Sweden’s Left party has said it will seek support from the main opposition to oust the prime minister, Stefan Löfven, if the government does not drop or change plans within 48 hours for the abolition of rent controls on new-build properties.

The Left party is not part of the government, but the minority coalition of the Social Democrats and Greens needs its backing to stay in power if the rest of the opposition is united.

X (the "Group" or the "Company") today announces the successful pricing and final terms of its offering (the "Offering") of £387.4 million of guaranteed senior unsecured unrated Convertible Bonds due 2026 (the "Convertible Bonds").

The Convertible Bonds will be initially guaranteed by X (the "Initial Guarantor(s)"). The terms and conditions of the Convertible Bonds (the "Conditions") will provide for provision of guarantees by other subsidiaries of X and the release of existing guarantors (including the Initial Guarantors) in certain circumstances.

The Convertible Bonds will be issued in principal amounts of £100,000 each and will carry a coupon of 1.625% per annum payable semi-annually in arrear in equal instalments on 10 June and 10 December in each year, with the first interest payment date being 10 December 2021 (the "First Interest Payment Date"). The Convertible Bonds will be convertible into new and/or existing ordinary shares of the Company (the "Ordinary Shares"). The initial conversion price is set at £18.06, representing a premium of 40% above the reference share price of £12.90 which is equal to the placement price of an Ordinary Share in the Concurrent Delta Placement (as defined and further described below). The conversion price will be subject to adjustment in certain circumstances in line with market practice.

NOTE!

Unsecured CB issue

Rate of Interest 1.625%,

Conversion price premium 40%

Maturity 10 June 2026

These CB's have been successfully issued by a Company that has, for the past year, had no generated revenue and because of the CV19, has an uncertain future.

Would you finance a company in the precarious Aviation and Tourism sector – Stobart’s airline failed at the weekend! Or one that is currently producing oil at 11,000 BPD with the price of Brent rising?

The ability to raise finance under these Terms and Risk profile places the competence of the Hurricane Energy plc BOD into perspective – once again!

Msol.

Poppy**** - They are not attending the meeting on a shareholders behalf!

They are producing a Letter of Representation from the Nominee company that permits the benefical Owner to attend the meeting personally and cast a Vote.

If the beneficial Owner does not wish to attend the meeting ,but does wish to Vote then a Letter of Representation is not required. It is only necessary for the Nominee company to submit a proxy Vote on behalf of the beneficial Owner.

The FEE is for the production of the Letter of Representation - not the casting of the proxy Vote.

SM

Yes I sent it at 0932hrs and received the response at 0953hrs

Just received the following in response to my request.

"Please contact us again the day before the hearing."

Boris is the new "Jim Trott"

Ref The Vicar of Dibley

I have never come across a Custodian charging for either registering a proxy vote on behalf of a beneficial owner or for supplying a Letter of Representation in order that the beneficial owner can attend and Vote in person at a company meeting.
You could ask for your shares to be returned to you in paper form. That will cause you to be registered by the company registrar on the shareholder register in your own name. There will be a cost for this but well worth it has you will be able to Vote and receive Annual Reports direct from the Company.

The simple solution, however ,is to take your custom elsewhere and change brokers.

Care to name the organisation concerned so that they can be shamed across Bulletin Boards.

It would appear to be a prima facia case the Bondholders are in a far better position from a risk Maturity repayment perspective then they have ever been since the Bond was issued. Additionally, the implied risk is ameliorated by the high coupon rate, and every payment of this has been made in full and on-time. Can’t see any reason to be concerned given the amount of oil recovery and the rising return at the current Brent price.

Don’t Panic! Keep Calm and Carry On!..................With a new BoD of course!

Mirasol

US$230 million

Depends if he "reserved" the case I believe.

Happy to be corrected.

Surprisingly there will be Owners of the company who are not aware of the forthcoming votes, and their importance as to how the future wealth of the company is shared.

Owners who hold their shares in their own name will be registered as such in the Company’s Register held by the Company’s Registrar. Others will, for convenience, have the beneficial interest of the shares held in a Custodians Nominee account that will appear on the Company Register as the Owner of the shares. These Custodian Nominees will receive information from the Company, and will be allowed to Vote at Company meetings.

Some of these Custodians not only rightly inform shareholders of company meetings, but they also allow beneficial owners to cast proxy Votes and Vote as shareholders. Interactive Investors are an example. Other Custodians do not inform shareholders of company meetings, but do accept proxy vote instructions from beneficial owners. Equiniti is an example.

Generally, execution only Custodians do not vote the shares where they do not have instructions to Vote. However, this situation is not guaranteed to always be the case, and it is therefore essential that all beneficial owners actively Vote at Company meetings.

Institutional Investors tend, by default, to Vote and support the recommendation of the Board unless they are from the “Activist” genre. Investors whose investments form part of these Funds are therefore unable to Vote against the actions of a Board - unless they are able to persuade the Investment Fund of Pension Fund managers otherwise.

It is therefore imperative, in the next battle in this “war,” to identify the actual and beneficial owners of the company and ensure that they are all aware of the situation..

Publicity is probably the best “battle tactic” for ensuring that the importance of the forthcoming AGM and EGM Votes are made known to both Owners and beneficial Owners of the Company.

Such publicity is occurring through the public Bulletin Boards such as LSE, however these provide only a restricted audience. There needs to be greater publicity! It is to the Press and other media that the effort should now be focused.

The more “media noise” generated by contacting Press, TV and Radio communicators, either directly or using social media methods, the more likely the media will become interested in the issue of what the Board of Hurricane Energy plc is attempting to do.

With regard to Institutional Investors, it is to be hoped that the strategies of Crystal Amber will include influencing their contacts within the City.

Any publicity is unlikely to enhance the future prospects of individuals whom currently constitute the Board of Directors. Furthermore, publicity will highlight more generally the shameful, albeit legal, strategies that can be used to deprive Investors, using the Alternative Investment Market, of their investment.

JR
The war is not over, albeit this battle was won!

Interactive Investors voting mailbox, used for casting Votes at Company meetings, indicate that the Board recommendation for all of the Resolutions at the EGM on the 5 July is to Vote FOR them.

At last, the non-Executive Directors are doing something positive and aligned with the Owners of the company!

Historically the Board has difficulty with figures – many important ones disappear!

I do hope they haven’t also lost / misplaced/ forgotten the number of the Company’s Owners votes against the plan!

The Court Order set out who was to attend the meeting - the two executive Directors with Marris to act as chairman of the meeting.

The lack of PI questions is possibly as a result of the “artificiality” of the meeting as a consequence of the CV19 restrictions.

Normally I would have physically attended the meeting and participated, but the incompetence / inability of my broker to make the arrangements to participate “virtually” prevented this.

It is also not possible to ascertain the quantity and quality of the PI questions submitted for response. How many went unanswered?

The critical meeting is that of 23rd June. We will have to hope that Crystal Amber’s efforts at this Court meeting will reflect those of PI’s and that they will champion our cause – that is of course if the meeting goes ahead!

It is not about time that Corporate UK accepted that the intent of a resolution placed before the Owners of a company, is NOT to seek their viewpoint?

The purpose of a resolution is to confirm the Owners authority / agreement to the actions proposed by those employed, by the Owners, to exercise the day-to-day stewardship of the company on their behalf.

If it is necessary to seek the views of the Owners then there are plenty of other techniques and mechanisms to achieve this.

Time for a change and Remuneration Committees in Corporate UK to be held to account for some of their preposterous actions and disregard for the wishes of the Owners of the company.

Future resolutions regarding remuneration should be binding on Morrisons plc - and the rest of Corporate UK.

The next meeting in this saga is tomorrow the 11th of June.

It would appear that the planned financial structuring of the company will be rejected by the owners of the business.

This will place those employed by the owners to act as stewards of the business, and to manage it for the benefit of the owners, in a difficult position. Having being deemed to have failed in their duty, would these individuals think it better to walk away from the problem, in order to preserve some reputational credibility when seeking future employment, or wait to be dismissed by the owners?

The 23rd of June meeting is the next critical one.

Not-with-standing the Court’s view of the owner’s rejection of the plan it will be necessary for it to consider whether the company is able to repay the Bondholders in July next year, or what other mitigating action might be necessary to achieve repayment.

Repayment has always been a risk for the Bondholders. The risk has existed since issue of the Bonds less than 4 years ago – a time when there was no company revenue, as no oil was being produced – effectively, there was no prospect of the Bonds being repaid. The Bondholders accepted that risk. Failure to make Interest payments were an additional risk to the Bondholders.

So, the risk of failure to make payments to the Bondholder, both Interest and Maturity have always been present. However, the overall risk to Bondholders has been reducing over time. Bondholders have always been paid their interest payments. Payments at a rate of Interest that acknowledged the risk being taken in making the finance available. With the advent of oil production, the maturity re-payment risk to Bondholders reduced as production continued and the price of oil increased.

Clearly it is in the interests of all parties that the company develops the production assets it has under its control. This would not only increase the wealth of the owners, but also further reduce the maturity re-payment risk to the Bondholders and assist in any other future financing arrangements.

The action of an unidentified number of Bondholders in, allegedly, not allowing the company to raise further finance, have frustrated both the development of further revenue opportunities and the ability to re-finance any potential shortfall in Bond maturity payments. Effectively they have purposefully increased Bondholder’s risk!

I wonder how the Court will view this? In equity one must come with clean hands.

That old Chinese curse springs to mind – “May you live in interesting times” We are!

GOD FORBID!

We have enough incompetents in the senior management of the NHS already!

The shareholders continue to employ them - but not as Directors. They thenwould have to work for their salaries - or of course they could look for other employment - with uncertain reputations!