Member Info for dflynch

Slift's 12:47

Depends on the Court results and the date for the implementation of any consequent share issue.

Perhaps a potential additional question for the Chairman.

Should the Plan NOT be sanctioned, what will be the Board of Directors singular and collective action be?

If the Bondholders succeed in acquiring 95% of the equity in Hurricane Energy plc then that places them in a strong position to compulsorily acquire the remaining 5%. I have some recollection that this might be the case but I cannot recall the circumstances when this might apply.

Can anyone assist in clarifying the situation?

Have investors that use the II platform registered for the Voting service?

"As a subscriber to our free Voting & Information Service, we'll let you know each time there are new documents available for you to view online. This means you'll receive shareholder materials and have the opportunity to vote on decisions directly affecting your UK registered shareholdings."

If you haven't received the e-mail please check with II.

If telephoning your instructions request written confirmation of what they are, and that they have been acted upon. A confimatory e-mail is not difficult.

It would be interested to have feedback on how votes will be cast by brokers in the event that they do not receive instructions from individual shareholders. Written confirmation of their policy would be useful - just in case someone miscounts at these meetings and a challenge is required!

SSM

Could I suggest that the e-mail also be sent to wendy.simpson@justice.gov.uk

This lady appears to be the administrative lead in dealing with the matter

It will probably receive the response "Your communication has been passed to the judge and to the solicitors dealing with this matter."

This is only available to PI's who hold there shares either in paper form or electonically with Hurricane's Company Registrar - Computershare.

Content of e-mail sent to CA earlier today.

I am a shareholder in Hurricane Energy plc as is your organisation Crystal Amber (CA) and I have e-mailed you previously on the issue.

It is quite clear to me that many Private Investors (PI) are concerned at the antics of the Hurricane Energy Board of Directors (BoD). PI's have taken great comfort in CA's attempt to bring the BoD to account. The requisition of a Shareholder meeting and the resolutions to replace the existing non-executive component of the BoD with John Wright and David Cruik will have considerable support from PI's.

However, the problem for many PI's, particularly those whose shareholdings are held by custodians in nominee accounts, is ensuring that they can vote and that votes they cast are properly taken into account.

It has been suggested that CA, as one of the largest shareholders, take a lead and volunteer to act as proxy for those PI's who wish to vote similarly to CA. Is this possible and would CA be willing to organise and act as such?

If it could be demonstrated to the BoD that CA has proxy votes which, together with CA's shareholding, exceed the 25% shareholder dissent required to reject the restructure plan, then surely the BoD would stop their current Court process. In doing so they would save company funds and allow a new BoD to focus on making an adequate investment return for all shareholders.

I would be content for CA to act as my proxy and vote my N,NNN,NNN shareholding alongside that of CA in order to achieve that. I am absolutely positive that many other PI's would join in supporting such an action.

End of content

I will, if permitted, post any response received.

Taveram.

The Bondholder vote is only to agree to accept the restructure plan.

If the existing shareholders were to also agree the plan then the extra shares required would be issued.

If the Bondholders do not accept the plan then the shareholder vote would not be required.

If it can be shown that 25% of the shares of existing shareholders will be voted to not accept the plan prior to any vote then it is difficult to condone the wasteful expenditure of the Board in continuing with their proposed restructure.

My holdings are held in various nominee accounts used by my brokers.

I know that one of these brokers will permit / encourage me to vote on-line prior to the meeting. My votes will be presented to the meeting using that brokers nominee proxy. Clearly the situation can occur where the nominee’s proxy will vote shares either to support a resolution, against the resolution or withhold the votes according to the instructions received from shareholders.

In the case of the broker who does not provide this voting facility then it is necessary to either ask for a letter of representation that permits attendance at the meeting and to vote the shares; or ask that the nominee provides a proxy to vote the shares. Clearly the efficiency and diligence of the broker is essential in ensuring that votes have been cast – I sometimes have doubts that it happens correctly.

Interestingly, I have been led to believe that unless instructions to the contrary are received the nominee proxy will vote the shares in line with the Board’s wishes. I have also heard that unless instructions are received the shares in the nominee accounts will not be voted. Form your own opinion on this.

The shareholder vote regarding any restructure is critical and all PI’s must be encouraged to vote. There is also the potential to vote on any other proposal put to shareholders as a consequence of a requisitioned General Meeting. For those who wish to reject the Board’s proposal action must be started now to ensure that shares can be voted to defeat the Board.

Clearly, if a major shareholder would be willing to act as proxy at any future shareholder vote then this could be an effective and efficient method of ensuring that shareholders votes really do count. Perhaps the next focus on this “Watergate” event should be on persuading Crystal Amber to act as proxy for PI’s at any meeting.

I am sure that an indication to Crystal Amber of at least a further 11% of proxy votes to support their action would be beneficial in protecting our investment.

Discuss.

Highlighted by me on several occasions.

CA's statement whilst correct - did not take into account the restriction that the CB's could not be repurchased piecemeal. Consequently CA's statement did not reflect what would happen in the Bond market and that HUR would have to have sufficient funding to purchase the CB's at par.

As previously highlighted HUR could not partialy repurchase the bonds piecemeal. They would have to re-purchase the whole issue and any attempt to do this would reduce the discount - supply / demand reaction of the Bond market.

Your 1620 comment

Rubbish - I was refering to the governance of companies that are founded to make money for their owners.

Interpretation of governance by companies that fail to follow this, indeed in some cases may have, allegedly , set out to defraud owners by their mis-stewardship - have no credibility

Slift

The Non-executive directors are there to protect the interests of the owners (shareholders) of the business by holding the executive directors to account for their actions. Clearly they have failed in this and so must either - honourably resign, or be dismissed by the shareholders for their failings.

Retention of the executive directors is necessary in order to ensure that the senior management of the company have the required operational direction, albeit under the guidance of non-executive directors that correctly protect the interests of the owners. Their long-term future with the comapny is speculative and a matter for the non-executive directors pending a meeting of the shareholders and resolutions on the matter placed before them.

With regard to prior statements made by executive directors in the past few months that may require further scrutiny. I trust that attention will be paid to this issue - Deloitte LLP you are now on notice regarding this. Possibly they should also be included in the e-mailing lists?

Negative? Aggressive? See its performance on the TRMR BB and ADFVN Silktech

Best place on filter

"The current methods of producing hydrogen are predominantly steam methane reforming (SMR) and water electrolysis. Both pathways have fundamental disadvantages, either in the level of emissions produced, the cost of production or the amount of energy needed being more than the output of the hydrogen generated.

The SMR pathway emits 9kg of CO2 for every 1kg of hydrogen produced

Electrolysis uses 50kWh of energy per 1kg of hydrogen (giving only 33kWh of energy)"

It would seem there is still a long way to go, and time necessary to achieve it, in order to replace the black with green.

Just saying!

“Sven was used as a signatory because he is a Swede, talking about Swedish issues, slightly more palatable than a Brit talking about Swedish issues in a PR sense.”

You could add a Swede talking to the Swedish government directly about an enterprise that is majority owned by Swedes; Swedes who must want the project to succeed and benefit ALL Swedish residents – whatever their claims!

Yes - these are eagerly awaited.

JS.
Thank you for confirming your Sunday evening status.

I think we can agree that we disagree about the issue of the Hurricane CB holder’s ability to convert at a time of their choosing before the CB maturity date. They cannot!

Consequently, I see no reason to change my comments about what you referred to as a “mop up” clause at 21.39 hours on Sunday evening but now correct the terminology to “clean-up call,” and the associated conditions.

Your point about redeem, and repurchase is interesting.

I have previously suggested, on this BB, that a third-party could make purchases of the dicounted CB's on behalf of Hurricane with the object of acquiring the whole CB issued. Probably an impractical tactic. But if Hurricane were to purchase the CB’s what would be the re-action of the CB holders? Would they object on the grounds that the act was tantamount to a piece-meal redemption, which we both agree is not allowed. Rich pickings for the “bewigged” me-thinks.

The maturity options available to Hurricane in July 2022, the issue of 442,307,692 new shares, precludes the possibility of default.

Clearly the acceptance of the CB’s terms by holders in 2017 was indicative of the optimistic view of Hurricanes future by them. As previously stated, I do not understand why they allowed Hurricane to have the whip hand in the matter of conversion.

We can now leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions on the points we have debated, and our opposing viewpoints on the matter of the convertibility of these particular Hurricane Energy plc issued CB’s.

Slift

I dealt with all your nom-de-plume comments yesterday.

I am sure others will read all the comments on the matter and decide for themselves - the professional of the amateur.