Member Info for DiveCentre

"The Company will implement a Staff Incentive / Retention Plan, the
terms of which to be agreed between the Company and the Ad Hoc
Committee. The cost of such a scheme is not provided for in the
Restructuring Business Plan"
Does that smell or what!

Whether or not Brent reaches $100 this year is of no great significance. Production will only start in 3 years time earliest and it is a question of what the price will be then and following on from then that matters.

dflynch
It's in the notice of AGM but as I am being kind here it is:
"In light of the current UK Government guidance and restrictions on meetings due to COVID-19, Shareholders will not be
permitted to attend the physical AGM. This year, we are enabling shareholders to attend and participate in the meeting
electronically, should they wish to do so. Electronically, shareholders will be able to listen to a live video cast of the AGM,
ask written questions and vote remotely. This can be done by accessing the AGM website, http://web.lumiagm.com on
the day of the AGM. "

There will always be risk for any Company that has debt and is revenue dependent to clear that debt. The question is whether the company has a reasonable prospect of funding and subsequently repaying its debt. At this point in time HUR is perfectly able to fund its debt and there is no absolute certainty that they will not be able to clear its debt when it becomes due. If you argue the HUR is presently insolvent then how many other debt laden listed companies would be in a similar situation?

Smith, the brief for HUR asked the judge for a decision by Friday to give the Company time to file the order with Companies House so that they can get the restructuring done in time to have the new shareholders (i.e., the bondholders) on board for the AGM. Obviously, they are well aware that without the CB holders as new shareholders the BoD risks getting voted out. There was some discussion on the timing and Smith agreed Monday 9.00am latest. It was also interesting that the judge wanted a public announcement so that no one would get to know in advance of others.
As well as giving a decision the judge would (as is usual) also provide an explanation as to how he has arrived at his decision and Zacaroli seemed to suggest this may be delayed.
Thornton for CA pointed out that they would need to have the explanation as well because without this they would not be able to decide if there were grounds for an appeal. There was then some discussion on whether the prospect of an appeal should prevent the filing of the order with Companies house and thus the restructuring proceeding.
It is all looking very precarious for the BoB.

Thornton has just raised a point which occurred to me that they have to consider the possibility of an appeal and its consequences.

Can someone tell them that Brent is now $76

It seems that the Companies excuse for not buying back the CB’s in the market is that it might upset the Ad Hoc group. What a load of tosh.

It is very worthwhile reading Richard Bernstein’s witness statement and particularly the email exhibits.
Points to note are that it was HUR’s Chairman Steve McTiernan who suggested buying back the CB’s (paragraph 12 page 3)
“Mr McTiernan asked our opinion about the Plan Company using some of its cash reserves to buy back some of the Bonds (so as to reduce the Plan Company’s liability). During my discussions with Mr McTiernan, he described this buy back as a commercial no-brainer. I agreed, and told him I thought would be a good idea.”
So why the hell did they not buy in the market. It beggars belief. The Ad Hoc group of CB holders represent just 66.17% ( i.e. less than two thirds) of the total holders which suggests to me that there is a market that could have been bought into. If they could have bought just half of the remaining 33.83% at a 50% discount it would have knocked off 39k, plus the interest saving.
And secondly there is Maris’s reply emails to RB which on a number of occasions cite personal reasons as an excuse for the delay in replying. If this man has personal issues that inhibit his ability to correspond with a major shareholder then is he fit to run the Company?

There are 3 parties and the skeletal arguments of each is a days reading.

Nansen Spirit en route to Lancaster for next offload. Due tomorrow 7.00am
Due Rotterdam Vopak Terminal 21.06

Halifax do not charge for this service. If they did it would be mentioned in their list of costs and charges and it is not. This is more misinformation being posted by those with an agenda.

utter drivel

Greenmachine
"While these investigations continue and ahead of an attempt to restart the P6 well ESP, the Company has decided to maintain the P6 well on natural flow at a rate of 9,000 - 11,000 bopd "
Note "bopd" does not include water.

Mirasol
They have been producing at around 11000 bpod since the end of last year and they can get 9000 to 11000 under natural flow so having the ESP offline is not an absolute disaster. They only started using them in June last year because of flow irregularities, and not to increase production. My understanding of the RNS is that turning on the ESP is not the primary issue. They are looking at the reason why it was tripped off.

Rodgetrades
There are vessels within sight of the AM and I know that there are people on those vessels that post here.

Or is it the up hill struggle? At least today some progress was made.

CA requisitions a GM

“The Hurricane board has also demonstrably failed to protect shareholders' interests. Its actions (more fully set out below) provide ample evidence of its evasive and obstructive engagement with its shareholders. The Fund believes there may well have been a failure by the incumbent Board to act in accordance with section 172 (1) of the Companies Act 2006, which states that a director must act in a way most likely to promote the success of a company.
The Fund therefore believes that, at the earliest opportunity, a new Hurricane board should assume responsibility.”

And guess what no rebuttal.

Wrong.
Read DTR 5.3.1
There are no exemptions for the method of acquisition or disposal. It is all about voting rights.

HeidHoncho

Thank you for a very sensible and constructive post.
Apart from the shock of the extent of the proposed dilution what also surprised me about the restructuring plan was the rollover of the remaining $180k of the CB’s with the bondholders raking in interest at over 11%. Yes the company has other commitments but why do they need to retain all the current net cash plus what will be produced over the next 12 months.