Member Info for Harryshang

I agree. Patience required to allow the proving up of assets to achieve best value on disposal, WN.

Harry

Yes, very positive and I shall maintain my long position.

I would like to see a return to the 90’s, then content to await special dividends on disposal of assets proved up to achieve best value.

Harry

Good evening YT & SB,

I do not see a repudiation of contract in strict terms as there was no concluded contract. A unilateral statement as contained in the RNS of gift cannot be a good contract as there are 3 basics:

1. Donee intent,

2. Delivery of the gift,

3. Acceptance of the gift.

SB, I agree this will have a deleterious effect on the cash shell. Makes one wonder whether lawyers have any input into an RNS?

YT, I agree that the Courts will hold NUOG and/or the Director (should he have acted outside his express, implied or ostensible authority) liable.

Which begs the question why Minty has belatedly expressed non-acceptance. Does the case have merit? Is Minty attempting to escape ongoing costs of NF? Is NF worthless ?

Harry

David,

Please make an appointment with your health professionals, we want to witness you enjoy the success you have worked so diligently to provide.

Harry

There has been some extraordinary speculation derived from very uncertain supposition.

One in particular I find incredulous, “... Rathlin owe money to the parent...perhaps RBD’s raise was utilised to reconcile”. We know that A&D’s modus is the excellent use of escrow accounts and funds will be released therefrom when specifics have been met.

A poster over on UJO (Backwoodsman, I think) stated facts from a Rathlin community meeting along with detail of
what has been approved. For present purposes:

1. 199 tons of storage,

2. An oil discovery as opposed to gas only,

3. A request for an ESP.

A&D have clearly missed the number 150 bus and have inadvertently boarded the 75. I strongly believe the 75 will reach its destination eventually.

After all, they were brought up in Byker.

Standing room only, hang tight.

Harry

Piper,

Excellent and rational posting with your appreciated professional experience.

S&S take note and provide an RNS to the effect combined with solid figures for California and timelines on Romania.

Unless, of course, all of these raises are a double bluff to the Majors.

Harry

Another scenario to the Humber situation, in my opinion, it would be very advantageous if a Major Player were to acquire Humber should Rathlin/UJO agree.

Backed by a Major, WN would take on a whole new market face attracting further II’s.

Let’s remind ourselves, there are Majors out there requiring sustainability of revenue in the current Fracking ban- Centrica, Ineos et al.

Harry

SB,

Many thanks for that comprehensive illustration.

Good luck with your holding.

Harry

Good evening SB,

A post with a line of symmetry , prima facie, there is inside knowledge.

Can you extrapolate on the acquisition value?

“... data room open ... to interested parties...”

Ambivalent to opening a position with the current bid/ask .

Hope all is well in Preston.

Harry

Piper,

Sounds good to me. I’m long and strong looking forward to the special dividend summer/autumn 2020.

Harry

Well informed factual post from GKB, these agreements are drafted to prevent protracted litigation as some posters would have you believe.

They are drafted to protect the “going concern” mandate and allow the financially sound partners first refusal on the asset. I do not envisage a share out of Humber’s interest without consideration.

It would not surprise me (assuming Humber are in default on WN) if negotiations have reached final stages where Rathlin and UJO are flush with funds and in a strong position to acquire Humber’s interest- excellent for RBD.

In my opinion, it would seem that Humber’s position has been known to Placee’s in both RBD’s and UJO’s Placings.

Harry

Yes. Another example of the integrity of management here where elsewhere on AIM directors award themselves options.

Thank you boys.

Harry

Good morning Piper,

RNS as required with excellent figures.

Your statements align with my own, the share price is soundly underwritten even with the increased shares in issue and the six month tie in to the equity swap.

I am looking forward , too, to the envisaged special dividend on disposition already established. Moreover, perhaps liberating us from the volatility associated with traders.

GLA

Harry

I disagree, it is explicit in the RNS:

“ opportunity to increase exposure”

Harry

Ying Tong, Major Miner,

My mistake, of course E0l must be cited as a Defendant on the Writ as per the contract- then there are 3 Defendants. I strongly feel agency will be part of the action (Minty).

“I would not let him lose his house”

Ying Tong,

I see no problem serving both Nuog and AM outside the jurisdiction- this merely adds time for the purposes of filing of the Defence.

I would also defer to SB’s response regarding indemnities of a parent company where oil licences are concerned and corroborated by Gary’ statements of the Shard loan.

I have some experience of a similar case and, the first question one requires an answer to prior to the costs incurred in such actions is

“Is there an entity/person with the capacity to satisfy any Judgment?”

The answer is perhaps irrespective of the default position that Minty is capable.

Harry

lejib,

I agree that the cause of action must be misrepresentation/ equitable estoppel- I foresee no problems with riding two horses there. Of course estoppel is a discretionary remedy and may solely be utilised as a shield.

Where I see a problem for PVF is where the funds will be recoverable from should NUOG file for Bankruptcy protection.

Notwithstanding, if representations have been made Ultra Vires by Minty himself then the estoppel may come into play. I feel sure Counsel will have drafted his case as Nuog first Defendant and Alan Minty second Defendant as Judgment quantum may be recovered against him personally- just desserts perhaps.

Harry

Jack, Badger, Simon,

Good to see the objective and competent posters supporting the chat board.

Harry

SB,

I am only competent to state that prior to issue of proceedings and draft of pleadings in an SOC, Counsel’s Opinion will have been sought on the merits and thereafter instructed to plead. This is not a small claim for a litigant in person.

I maintain that Counsel would not draft pleadings in an SOC if there was no cause of action and therefore merit to the Claim. . It is for the Judge to determine on the balance of probabilities not GS.

Harry

SB,

Are you inferring there are 2 Plaintiffs? If so, this would negate any contractual condition to enter dispute resolution.

The only Anthony Young who comes to mind is a former fraudulent Oil man declared bankrupt and gaoled in Kentucky years ago.

There seems to be confusion as to when EOi received the SOC. There is no duty of the Court to advise. Simply, EOi would be served at their Registered Office in St. John’s. They have 28 days to either serve a Defence, Admit the claim or as they assert their is no merit in the claim to make an interlocutory Application for Strike Out.

Harry

Ying Tong,

The balanced view as always.

I would add if. SOC has been served, it is highly likely that Counsel’s Opinion was sought and thereafter pleadings drafted.

I find it highly unlikely Counsel would draft an SOC if it shows no cause of action as it would be summarily dismissed in an interlocutory Application with Costs.

If AM has made representations as alluded to, I would submit there may be a cause of action in Misrepresentation and or an estoppel. Estoppel being a shield and not a sword in equity perhaps the dispute resolution forum is inappropriate.

Lastly, it would be very difficult for AM to argue Ultra Vires given his then present position ( contemporaneous), one might reasonably infer he was clothed with authority, express, implied or apparent.

Harry