Member Info for HeidHoncho

financially savvy than myself.

Over the years I have picked up snippets of information/comments that I have at that time not paid too much time on as it was white noise, and not relevant to the companies that I was interested in at the time, so please bare with me if my questions appear overly simplistic, or lacking in understanding.

1) I seem to remember hearing something about entities mandatory requirements if they alone, or as a recognised group of individual entities, obtain in excess of 30% of a companies shares in issue.
If more than 30% is held in a companies shares in issue is it a mandatory requirement for that holder/holders to make an offer to buy the company ?

2) is it correct that the price offered to purchase the other 70% of the shares must be made at the highest price that the 30% share holder has paid in the preceding 12 months ?

If I haven’t misunderstood both of the above, and given that if MA underwrites a rights issue he will likely (no guarantees however) end up with in excess of the 30% of shares in issue, given that some existing holders will not be able to, or will not want to, take up all of their rights.

All of the above having been said, does anyone know what the highest price MA/SPD has paid for a share in the preceding 12 months ?

As I said right from the get go, I am likely to be well wide of the mark with my musings, as take over issues have not been to date my bag, so I would appreciate anyone who is truly knowledgable on the matter if they were to edify me.

Many thanks.

Hammers, oh dear me no, I was not for one minute intimating that the esteemed (in some quarters) Mr Hope had performed such a heinous and nefarious act.

It as purely a hypothetical scenario that I was postulating, you understand.

IF a party had been, let’s say for example, been naked shorting with shares not currently in their possession, having done so in the belief that they were ultimately going to become the owner of a large amount of shares (yet again, let us use 500 million or so shares for example) in the not too distant future to close out any naked short that party may have “accidentally” got themselves into, only then they were out played and found out that the eagerly anticipated large tranche of shares were not coming their way, or at the very least a large question mark now existed that would put serious doubt in them now ever receiving those shares, what does anyone believe might be the outcome of that ?

Do people believe that the short party, who had previously acted very astutely (though there may be discussion as to how moral their moves had been), and in a very measured manner, now required to act in the manner of a cornered rat, and in an attempt to avoid total destruction started acting ver irrationally and illogically, and felt the need to puff out their chest to look bigger than they really were, In doing so getting themselves into a fight that even they realised that they had no chance of winning, in a last ditch attempt to salvage the smallest sliver of capital rather than get wiped out completely.

Or, do people believe that as hurt and injured as that party now be feeling, and perhaps also feeling lonely if that party’s other best friends had chosen to distance themselves from that fight and allowing that party to go down in splendid isolation, that the injured party may realise that there was no way out, and choose to lay on their back showing their soft underbelly, pleading for mercy, and offering up whatever the victor requires such that the injured party is allowed to slink off to lick their wounds, but in the knowledge that the injured party was never going to be a force to be contemplated ever again ?

Hypothetically speaking, were ever such a potential ever come to pass with any company, what does everyone think that may do to the companies bank balance (given this hypothetical scenario it would be wise to consider bank balances rather than share price, as who knows, were this scenario ever come to pass it may be a privately listed company, such that there was no immediate share price gain, but that is not to say that it wouldn’t be reflected positively in a share price were this fictitious private company ever chose to list on a stock market in the near future.

Just musing, that’s all.

From the RNS issued on the 5th December.

“The targeted prospect is estimated by the Company to hold 250mmbbl of gross prospective resources and the Chance Of Success is estimated to be 44%”

Phew, for a moment I thought there was almost 10 times that which could ultimately be issued.

Glad you cleared that up for me :)

How many shares ?!

Apologies all, but I would like to ask ADUK a question on an unreletated topic.

ADUK, what would happen to, let’s say for arguments sake, RBD’s share price, for example, if the Coulter well wasn’t going to be wireline logged ?

Nothing duplicitous you understand, just a random question, so as to edify myself, IMHO.

Claiming to have knowledge not in the public domain, and has admitted to conducting trades on the back of that.

Clearly not the sharpest card in the pack if he is willing to admit to insider trading on a public bulletin board.

I question either the common sense, or credibility, of folks at times.

wacjac, Snap, I also voted the last time to refuse the BoD the authority to double the shares in issue, as I have previously lived through their multiple wantonly amateur dilutions from previous to the last consolidation.

Then was the time to refuse them the ability to continually burn through the cash, not now.

Or at the very least then was the time to allow them to raise funds, but only through rights issues, so that the already pained shareholders could benefit in preference to the bucket shops, as at least the pi’s would more likely hold their shares than the flippers who had pre-sold their allocations in advance of the shares being issued.

It was clear that a large proportion of the last authority that had been sought had been pre-sold, and a short trap was possible had the authority been voted down, and the SP would have recovered accordingly as those forward sold would have required to buy back shares that they were no longer authorised to be issued to close out their positions.

But now is too late, and they will yet again intimate that if they aren’t given the authority to issue yet a greater quantity of shares that the company will go bust.

Well, my vote will be the same this time as it was the last time, and that is a resounding no.
Only this time my vote will have 50% less weight behind it this time, as they have doubled the shares in issue, so my shareholding as a percentage of the vote will be half of that which it was the last time.
And guess what, if they succeed in obtaining the authority again, then when we discuss this dilution subject again in a further 12 months then my no vote will then only have half as much weight again, ad Infinitum.

IMHO, obviously.

valju, it is currently 0.00552 to sell for a batch of 900,000

Is there not some regulation process that would prevent them from launching a TO approach for a minimum period.

Not something that I am up to speed with, but years of watching a number of shares has me recollecting a lock out process comes into play, now that they have shown their hand in an RNS.

I seemed to recall that now that they have publicly stated that they currently have no desire to launch a takeover offer, they cannot now launch a take over bid for a further 6 months, or is it 3 months ?

If that were to be the case, then JD would open themselves upon to a non compliance charge were anyone from the company, or BOD, were they then to attempt a takeover within the “stand easy” period, as that would be contrary be perceived to market manipulation.

As mentioned above, not something that I am up to speed on, and merely trying to trawl my memory banks, as something is not adding up.

ionic, rather than put that question to the posters on this board maybe you should ask your commander in chief, as he stated it.

https://mobile.twitter.com/WShak1/status/1090625666310123520

With it being an American company registered in the Cayman Islands you don’t realistically expect any meeting, be that either annual or extraordinary, to be held in the U.K. do you.

I’m a holder of a number of millions of shares, so I don’t take any pleasure in highlighting the obvious, but I think it’s team we got a little more realistic.

There is always hope, but now that we are a private concern the need to review the articles of association (or the equivalent American/Cayman document is) takes on a greater level of interest, so as to identify what if any commitments that they have made in their that the are legally obliged to follow.

Let’s not kid ourselves, Zaza and SN hold enough stock in the company that they will have a very large say in anything that might get voted on, and it is only reasonable to expect that they will protect their own interests, and further feather their own nests, in preference to the best interests of the PI’s.

My hopes and aspirations for my holding here still exist, but given that we are now delisted it is only realistic to significantly temper any expectations that I may now have.

GLA, as I feel we will need it.

As can be found on the RNS of the 24th October, section 4c if memory serves, “Following these transactions, Amjad Bseisu and Double A Limited collectively have shareholdings totalling 151,178,729 shares.”.

Given that there has collectively been a couple of relatively small purchases through AB/Double A since then it is clear whenever the Director Deal shareholding is disclosed on here that it is for the conjoined holding, and not that it is purely AB’s holding, so any proposition that the total holding between them may be as high as 20% is at best erroneous, at worst disingenuous.

Nine tails, I may be wrong, but ......... I hope you don’t see a flare on the 72 as I don’t believe they are performing a DST, I think they are just logging it.

If you were to see what appears to be a flare that would be a bad sign if they are only logging and not testing.

But like I said, my recollection on their programme is foggy, so may be worth checking if they are only logging, or they are indeed going to perform a DST upon reaching TD.

Do you mean the same company that had assets of only circa £200,000 at the end of 2018 ?

To be fair, that was a far higher position than they had at the end of 2017, when their current assets at that date was a paltry £55,000.

Yet you profess that their shares are worth £4.32 a share ?!

Surely not.

I must have missed that, as I was only going by the detail in the RNS relating to the new notes issued in 2016, and there was no mention of that in that RNS.

Where can I find details relating to interest payments being required in cash please, as that is contrary to the RNS relating to the original notification of the 2020 notes.

Many thanks.

An interesting point in the terms of the interest payments on the loan note.

“The 2020 Notes are not convertible into ordinary shares of the Company and bear an interest rate of 10 percent if paid in cash or 12 percent if paid in-kind with additional notes at the Company’s election. ”

My reading of it is that it was up to FRR to decide whether they paid the interest payment in cash, or through issuing Outrider additional notes (Note. Not FRR shares in payment, as the notes are non convertible) on the same terms.

What are the chances that FRR BoD (excluding SH) had decided to issue new notes rather than cash, but SH vetoed that, and would only sign off on the interest payment if it was made in cash, knowing that FRR did not have the cash readily available to do so, thereby forcing FRR to default on the payment.

I’m sure any judge would view that sort of action with disdain, as it was clearly only beneficial to Outrider, and not to the shareholders that SH was legally bound to protect as a director of FRR.

I’m sure no of this is clear at the moment, but is perhaps just another twisted avenue to ponder when considering why FRR did not merely make the interest payment through issuing additional notes, as was their right to make had that been their decision.

I do hope that was an innocent error, and not an attempted ramp.

56BCF is equivalent to only circa 9,654,105 boe

Hardly worthy of the intimated excitement.

Source …….. http://www.kylesconverter.com/energy,-work,-and-heat/cubic-feet-of-natural-gas-to-barrels-of-oil-equivalent

Scully, did you have a hectic weekend, as your short term memory seems to be failing.

You posted on Tuesday last week that you were getting 1.50p on test sells, and as recently as 3 days ago on Friday claiming you were being offered 1.60p for test sells.

Fear not if your memory is failing, as you can always get a memory prompt if need be by reviewing your own posting history on here.

Just putting that out there to aid you.