Member Info for DiveCentre

AK

The best way that shareholders can influence "the judge" is by voting against the plan in sufficient numbers. This will be far more effective than any amount of pleading emails or quoting Cicero.

This explains what to do if you hold with a provider.

https://www.sharesoc.org/investor-academy/advanced-topics/nominee-accounts/#:~:text=If%20you%20are%20a%20shareholder,wish%20to%20speak%20or%20vote.&text=For%20this%20reason%20some%20companies,when%20a%20vote%20takes%20place.

AK
As I am sure you know the Lincoln tie in required gas export via the WOS pipeline. That was the requirement when Lancaster production was expected to be 20k but in the current situation of Lancaster only producing half of expectation why have they not petitioned the OGA to delete this requirement, as they have apparently done with production below bubble point.

I have a deep suspicion that certain people with an axe to grind post on these boards.
Ever wondered how predictions of an o/w level subsequently turned out to be the same as that in the technical review and CPR. Strange isn’t it.

They need 75% of voting shareholders (by value) to approve the restructuring plan and as turkeys don’t vote for Christmas it’d not difficult to predict the outcome. Since this shareholder vote has been ordered by the Master it beggars belief that the court could subsequently approve the plan if the shareholders vote it down.

If you hold your shares through a provider contact them immediately and tell them that you want to vote. They will then send you a letter/form on which you can register you vote. DO NOT rely on others.

hasiba
this is the full wording:

304
Directors' duty to call meetings required by members
(1)Directors required under section 303 to call a general meeting of the company must call a meeting—
(a)within 21 days from the date on which they become subject to the requirement, and
(b)to be held on a date not more than 28 days after the date of the notice convening the meeting.
(2)If the requests received by the company identify a resolution intended to be moved at the meeting, the notice of the meeting must include notice of the resolution.
(3)The business that may be dealt with at the meeting includes a resolution of which notice is given in accordance with this section.
(4)If the resolution is to be proposed as a special resolution, the directors are treated as not having duly called the meeting if they do not give the required notice of the resolution in accordance with section 283.

Section 304 of the Act
They have 21 days to call the meeting and then the meeting must be convened within 28 days.
CA requisitioned the GM on 19th May so it’s easy to work out. Its pretty sure the BoD will drag it out.

hasiba
If what you say is true that is a damming indictment.

Lonestag
this only repeats what was said in the offer "redeem OR purchase".
The word OR is of significance.

When will you all get it into your thick heads that if if buying in the market amounted to redemption there would be no need to declare PURCHASE as an alternative to REDEMPTION.

Slift
"I've clarified it to you multiple times now."
You have said it multiple times but never produced the evidence.

dflynch

Unless previously converted, redeemed, or purchased and cancelled, the Bonds will be redeemed at par on the fifth anniversary of the Closing Date (as defined below). The Company will have the option to redeem all, but not some only, of the outstanding Bonds: • at any time on or after the date falling 3 years and 21 days after the Closing Date at par plus accrued interest if the value of the Ordinary Shares underlying a Bond (calculated over a specified period) shall have been at least U.S.$300,000; and • at any time, if 85 per cent. or more of the aggregate Principal Amount of the Bonds originally issued shall have been previously converted, redeemed, or purchased and cancelled (the “Clean-up Call”)

Take note of the wording “redeemed or repurchased”. They are alternatives and not one and the same.
The company can only redeem 100% but purchase is not the same as redemption, otherwise why would it be necessary to add in line 1 after redeemed “or purchased and cancelled”.

Any thoughts on a shareholder collective forming a Company to buy the CB’s

hasiba

“Why didn’t the BoD buy the bonds when they communicated previously with CA as “ no brainier option “?!”

This is the great unanswered question and is why I asked if it had been mentioned in the proceedings.
It is conceivable that covenants exist that bar the Company from buying in the market but to my knowledge there is nothing in the public domain that confirms the issue one way or another. I have emailed the Company 3 times over the past twelve months with this question and received no reply. If such covenants do exist why can they not come clean and just say so?
Clearly Richard Bernstein thought they could buy and if his account is correct so did “it’s a no brainer” Steve McTiernan. Why would he say that or is it the case that he was ignorant of such possible covenants, which in itself would be sufficient reason to call for his resignation.
The restructuring plan indicates that there has been no such buying and in my opinion shareholders are entitled to know the facts. Is it barred, and if not why has there been no buying? I fully accept that that market may be very illiquid and that the quantity available for purchase may be tiny, but every bit helps and if the opportunity is there and they have for whatever reason chosen not to buy then they are depriving shareholders of value and thus negligent.

hasiba
your post 19.11. Thanks for the answer.

High AK, good to see you posting regularly and ****ing off the doubters.

Was there any mention during the proceedings of point made by CA in their results about HUR buying the CB's in the market?

On 10th May HUR gave notice of publication of annual results on the 25th May. Will be interesting reading particularly the CEO and Chairman’s statements. Will there be any frantic rewriting over the weekend?

Slift so why ask the question if you already know the answer?

In any event it's pretty clear their days are numbered.

Slift
"Why give the benefit of the doubt to Antony Maris and Richard Chaffe?"
CA did explain this in their RNS. Did you bother to read it?

NGR1616

“did the investment turn beyond dreams of avarice”
We all invest with the intention of making a profit so does that mean we are all guilty of avarice.
You post is extremely insulting.

I applaud your intentions but you do need to check your facts. There was in fact only 2 offloads during Q1 .Read my post 29 Apr 2021 12:15
The year end balance would have included proceeds from the late December offload.