Member Info for HeidHoncho

“did not clean hole long enough before POOH to run casing” and “School boy error” ?

Yeah, because hole cleaning in a horizontal section within a fractured basement, utilising a brine as a drilling fluid, at/on/near the fracture gradient, is a piece of p*ss ........... not !

Rather than criticise, (when clearly, and self admittedly, from a position where the facts are not known, merely fantasised about in a manner to suit the assumptions being made) perhaps you would care to postulate what you would have done differently to avoid making this “School boy error”.

Perhaps even offering up your previous experience of drilling fractured basement reservoirs would be a good starting point, as that might offer up some credence as to your ability to school these, clearly experienced (after all, it is not their first fractured basement reservoir rodeo, so to speak), operations teams as to how to properly clean up a horizontal fractured basement section.

IMHO, obviously.

“BASHERS NEVER Bash A BAD STOCK” ?

Seriously ?

You clearly must have been blinkered to the large number of bashers on the likes of Afren, Fly-be, Debenhams, Thomas Cook (currently), etc. , etc. , before their demise then.

Let’s keep the conspiracy theory to a minimum, what do you say.

“The Royal Bank of Cyprus” ?

How can there be a “Royal” Bank of Cyprus, as they have no monarchy.

Investors Chronicle need to sack either the journalist, the editor, or the proof reader.

Same Sh*t Different Day

Apologies, it would appear that the article you referred to on the BLOE BB is over a year old, whereas your particular link refers to a newer redemption of very recently.

Pity that’s not relevant to what’s happening just now though.

That article is well over a year old, from April 2018.

dulwichman, we are not “forcing” an AGM to be held, it is a preordained right.

Additionally, unless they did indeed hold an unadvertised AGM at the principle office on the second Thursday in April this year at 10:00am, then they are in default of their own Articles of Association.

Now I don’t know the legislative requirements in the Cayman’s, but given that that they appear to be based predominantly on U.K. law I will presume (unsubstantiated at this point in time however) that the Cayman’s have an organisation akin to Companies House in the U.K.

As such, if one of my companies in the U.K. were found by Companies House to be non compliant with their articles that company would likely be at the least suspended until such time as the error was rectified, or at worse struck off.

IMHO

Article 75 precludes members from collectively, or individually demanding an AGM is held.

That however does not preclude them from requesting one, though the BoD are not in any way obliged to accede to that request.

There are a couple of points that should be noted were an AGM to be convened, and collectively be backed through at least 10% of the paid up shareholders.
1) Representation must be “in person” at the meeting whether a representative has been given proxy to vote on behalf of that 10%.
2) and even more critically, I would respectfully suggest that we are cognisant of article 86, and call for the vote to be determined by means of a poll.
Failure to do so would mean that it would be conducted by a show of hands, and each person present, irrespective of the shareholding that they may be proxy to will only have a singular vote.
i.e. if the tea lady was present and only had one share, and the janitor was also there and he only had two shares, and they voted against our proxy’s voting block vote, then the tea lady’s and janitor’s votes would win, even though in total their shareholding was only 3 shares against our proxy’s circa 1.8 Billion block of shares.

Having said the above, it would be folly to forget the volume of shares that the BoD currently hold, so even in a poll we would be unlikely to win, but never the less it is a deterrent to us being railroaded in the same way a show of hands would certainly do.
It offers no guarantee of success, but it certainly better levels out the playing field.

IMHO

Seriously RR, is that the depth of your response ?!

You really need to take those rose tinted spectacles off if you cannot even grasp the context.

The Articles of Association are there to protect us as shareholders.

It is a guarantee that they will operate in a Cuprinol way, and do what it says on the can.

It is the backbone of the way that the directors of the company, who we as shareholders pay for and have the right to vote onto the board or off of the board (not individually, but collectively), and it is the written obligation from the board as to the manner that the company will be run.

It is there so as to ensure that directors cannot please themselves, and do whatever they damned well like without recourse to law.

It is as much there to protect us as shareholders as it is there to govern how the company must conduct business.

dulwich, with the greatest respect, what has not been overdemanded is the requirement for them to have held an AGM.

After having been kindly guided to a copy of the company’s Articles of Association (which they are legally obliged to operate under, be the company listed on a recognised exchange or not), and it would appear that they have either been remiss not to have held one in April, or they held one without announcing that one was to be held (which having read the Articles it would appear that this is strangely something that they can do if they so wish to).

What they could not have done however is voted on any resolution at that meeting, as we as shareholders had not been given the opportunity to vote by proxy.

It would have been wholly illogical, not to say incredibly ludicrous, to have held an AGM without any resolutions being passed, as there are some standard resolutions that get passed at every AGM, over and above resolutions such as application/re-applications for board members, passing of the previous minutes being an accurate representation, the passing of the annual accounts as being an accurate representation of the financials, etc.

Wishing to remain silent on certain issues due to ongoing conflicts is one thing, but being so dismissive of their shareholders, and being in breach of their own corporate governance which they are legally obliged to do so is quite another thing.

The above is merely my opinion based on reading the Articles of Association, and not being portrayed as fact, and I did request yesterday for anyone to pass comment on this postulation but not one response was received.

I am all for playing our cards close to our chests due to the circumstances we find ourselves in, but to be so totally disrespectful to us long standing shareholders, not to mention not meeting their legal obligations contained within their (the Company) own Articles of Association, is in my mind totally unacceptable.

star, thank you for that.

Given that included in their Articles that “The annual general meeting shall be held at such time and place as the Directors shall appoint and if no other time and place is prescribed by them, it shall be held at the principal office on the second Thursday in April of each year at 10 a.m. At these meetings, the report of the Directors (if any) shall be presented.”

Were we informed of the AGM date and time (I am having issues recovering historic RNS’s, hence my questions), and if not, did we miss a trick by not attending on the default date at the default location ?

However, and irrelevant of whether we were advised of a date/time/location, and were not then consequently able to attend, there must have been no resolutions to vote on, as we would not have heard of the resolutions to vote on, and irrespective of our ability/inability to attend, that would not prevent us from being able to vote by means of proxy, which I’m not aware of that opportunity being given to me.

Would anyone like to pass comment on the above, given that I cannot readily access the RNS’s from this year.

Many thanks.

Dvsfm, I appreciate the difference between the RNS and the tweet, but it was the contradiction between the two that I was questioning.

Additionally, something in the RNS is at odds, not that I am saying your maths is wide of the mark, as I also make out that a £2 million CLN at circa .24 euros a share comes out at circa 8+ million shares if converted, but that raises a question of how CEZ would become the largest shareholder purely through that, as to do so would take circa 28 million shares (as KDNC have circa 19% of a current 147 million shares in issue).

And in response to your point regarding the tweet, it clearly stated “the option to purchase a majority stake” in EMH, a literal translation of “majority” to be in excess of 50% (there is no other way to define “majority” that I am aware of), and they themselves state the wording “be under control of the state”, a control that they cannot have without being the majority owner.
And given that they mention having acquired the “option” (note, not the opportunity) to purchase this controlling stake then by definition “option” indicates that an agreement to do so has at the very least been tacitly received.

You may see my question as being arguably negative, whereas on the contrary, the question is to highlight a potentially positive aspect.

That aspect being, based on the utilisation of “majority”and “option”, that perhaps a deal (perhaps only tacitly, and yet to be ratified) has been struck to sell a majority of the company holding the resource to CEZ, for a reasonably large sum of money, with the balance still being held with EMH for recurring annual dividends/royalty/profit.

EMH shareholders then getting a large one off dividend payout (minus the value that EMH would have to pony up as the minority interest for their share of the development costs) when the majority of the resource holding company is sold to CEZ, and then benefitting annually with further dividends once the mine is in production.

I am not saying that this is what is going down in the background, I am merely postulating whether this may potentially be the case given some of the terminology that has been utilised.

IMHO only, you understand.

Can someone please explain how the “the option to purchase a majority stake in the Australian Company EMH” in the following statement aligns with the “will not hold a stake in the company that would require CEZ to make a mandatory offer” fro the RNS statement ?

The utilisation of the phrase “a majority stake” is indicative of in excess of 50%, but I always thought that if an entity owned 30% or greater of a company’s stock then it was mandatory to make an offer for the company.

More than happy for anyone qualified, or more knowledgeable on company law, to point out the error in my current understanding.

Many thanks.

“If it turns out that the extraction of lithium on the Cínovci is promising, it will again be under the control Of the state ?? S @KarelHavlicek_ and @SkupinaCEZ WE agree that CEZ acquires the option to purchase a majority stake in the Australian company EMH, which is through geomet holder of rights to exploration of lithium mining."

“The number of conversion shares will be limited such that, inter alia, CEZ will not as a result hold a stake in the Company that would require CEZ to make a mandatory offer for the entire issued share capital of the Company or otherwise require the Company to seek shareholder approval for the purposes of the Australian Securities Exchange Listing Rule 7.1.”

Can anyone direct me towards the Memorandum of Association for FRR.

Many thanks.

Why do you see them as two sells, as opposed to a buy and a sell at an arranged price ?

IMHO

Hypothetically speaking you understand.

What if a couple of company execs were to begin to see a current plan potentially unravelling, and the fallout from which might be cause for them either to be replaced, or worse still be the cause of that current company to fail.

Would it then be prudent for them to build a new bolt hole for them to have ready to parachute into ?

Mind you, that would cost money to perform the DD necessary to ensure that the bolt hole had a semi credible back story for it to be sold as “investable”, as they would need to get shareholders in this new company to invest into, so as to ensure that their salaries in the new company would continue unabated.

What if however, they could get someone else to pay for, and take the exposure for, this DD that required to be carried out, and at no initial (yes, they may require to pay it back in time, but only if it was a success) cost or exposure to themselves.
And if that could be done without putting up any surety or guarantee that this money could ever be recovered, nor having to give the lender any equity in the new company, retaining that all for themselves and risking nothing, then that would surely be a sweet deal, don’t you think.

Stranger things have happened in business, and no intimation that this is occurring here, none what so ever, but it is strange what you can begin to muse about when the full facts are either not known, or only slowly get teased out when the cat starts getting let out of the bag when forced to do so.

IMHO

That would look more than a little suspect.

Tomorrow is Saturday.

That’s a positive then.

Had the shareholders won a claim against the directors directly for a wrongful act the likelihood would have been that the directors wouldn’t have had the personal funds available to pay the claim.

But now that it has been pointed out that the directors have insurance against such an event then any claim won against a wrongful act by a director could be paid out in full from the insurance.

Thank you for pointing out that potential positive.

IMHO

Of course you did.

How could anyone doubt that.

That must have stung.

You bought in at circa 3.7p

That’s heading towards a 60% loss in a little over 2 weeks.