The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
YT,
Yes. Not cleanly unencumbered.
SB,
Yes. Valid points.
Harry
Ying Tong,
First, they are named as Defendants- Respondents respond to Appellants which is an action in appeal.
My initial take was that Counsel would name EOI, NUOG & Minty as co-Defendants working on a bifurcate approach:
1. A Defendant with the capacity to satisfy any Judgment, and
2. The inference that there was a promissory estoppel.
I agree that NUOG/Minty will not be able to avoid liability through the latest action. In fact, where there is current litigation, my opinion is the current declaration is illegitimate.
FWIW, I hope this assists.
Harry
Ying Tong,
I believe your suggestion that indemnity insurance may certainly have a place.
If one was considering the purchase by way of shares in an LLP where there was outstanding litigation perhaps indemnity could assuage the buyer.
If the SOC relies upon side agreements, as SB alluded to, (LT might be able to clarify from the Liberal Club meeting) I feel sure NUOG and Minty personally will have been joined as Second & Third Defendants respectively ( merely an interlocutory application usually awarded by the DJ early on in proceedings).
Harry
SB & YT,
Some well worked points worth discussion.
It would be instructive to have sight of the Pleadings in the case- I wonder whether PVF would allow sight of the Statement of Claim?
I do not see that because a date has not yet been filed for trial there will not be one. There are many interlocutory matters to be dealt with prior: witness statements, Discovery et al.
Notwithstanding, you are correct in that the majority of civil litigation is settled, such settlement negotiations being without prejudice.
However, I remain dubious as to why Counsel would advise pursuance with little or no prospect of funds of $1mm to satisfy any Judgment.
Harry
Denia,
From your eloquent past posts, one believed your posts were worthy of reading, while I appreciate your disillusionment in accrual of SP, I would endorse a respite to re-evaluate. Relax, take a holiday.
I was disappointed with the latest RNS in relation to encourage a positive vote in favour- as the insiders have mounted the wall, I see no reason why S&S cannot reveal the presentation presented to the them in its entirety.
Harry
I’m in.
Will fetch a Wookey Hole Truckle of Cheddar.
****tails-mine’s a heavy handed gin with the merest splash of tonic.
Let me know the date.
You’ll recognise me in the gallery as the guy looking good for his age.
Harry
Undoubtedly, you are free to say.
Only because S&S have the relationships have they made this unprecedented move to raise funds unknown to AIM.
The II’s, UHNWI’s et al have stated the case,. I feel sure the majority (TR1’s to be advised) will be here to collect the dividends tax free.
I look forward to an SP on an even keel tethered to rewards for holders.
Harry
May join you SB if the Lancashire sausages are on the menu for luncheon?
Harry
Some new inarticulate posters here (me Tarzan you Jane) endorsing the P&D. The shame is that the unenfranchised may bet their hard earned.
I very much doubt Minty & clan will escape without due retribution as I would definitely join him as a Party to proceedings legitimately where personal representions had been made.
Tarzan & Jane have obviously not received my Sicilian Mother’s backhand.
Harry
have intimated that they should have the opportunity to invest in the Accelerated Placing.
The RNS today has awarded that opportunity.
I have taken advantage of that opportunity as an active constituent of a family fund.
Harry
Not greedy, personally, I am not concerned with so called multi baggers.
S&S have paved the road for dividends consonant with their courting of the II’s.
I envisage an end to volatility in short order or perhaps hope for.
Harry
Simon,
The voice of reason adduced with strong references within the bedlam of flappers.
I would add that the RNS clearly shows the intention to prove up both WN and Rumania to achieve best monetisation for exit. CPR is clearly being pitched to Placees, however, in my opinion, there will be no sale from the CPR in isolation.
Happy to hold here and let it play out.
Harry
Jack,
A comprehensive factual post which sets out the stall.
I would reiterate what has been stated by posters I respect for their probity- the flow rates from 1 well will not paint the full picture. The EWT does not preclude a CPR.
In DB’s latest interview, ( I respect his hair and clothing) my inference was he would like a full sale on the on the CPR alone.
DB has stated when pushed, on recoverable barrels, we have appraised you work it out. That has been comprehensively articulated by SecretBlueprint: 100mm +.
In my estimation @ $15 a barrel gives a disposition value of B1.5$. Of course, we need a minimum of 2 interested parties to make the sale.
GLA
Harry
Ying Tong,
A rational and well worked synopsis of the 3rd Q fs and planned redevelopment.
I would add that already there have been two outside parties involved to reach the current stage.
1. An external consultant (unnamed as far as I can see) to mitigate the diesel costs of the FPSO from 43,000 to 25, 000 litres monthly = £1.55mm monthly saving by incorporation of generators.
2. The Gaffney, Cline & Associates report commissioned in August pertaining to projections of revenue through to completed redevelopment.
Clearly, the above would be pre- requisite to renegotiate the Charter.
In short, they are looking to increase production from approx 6,000 bpd to 10,000 bpd.
Any third party will presumably take revenue from the increase, 4,000 bpd on a sliding scale in accordance with terms of allotment to DE and OGX. I will not attempt a valuation to a Third Party.
Harry