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.
CRUCIAL - Vote your HURR shares today25 Apr 2023 08:14
It is now getting critical that Investors, if they have not already done so, cast their votes for the Court Meeting and the Extraordinary General Meeting taking place on Thursday 4th May.
At the Court meeting individual Investors on the HURR company register at 6pm on Monday 1st of May can cast their one vote. Beneficial owners of HURR shares, that is Investors holding HURR shares in a Broker’s “Nominee” accounts, are disenfranchised from voting at this meeting.
However, and of particular importance to these disenfranchised Investors is the vote at the Extraordinary General Meeting, which follows the Court meeting. At this meeting PRAX and the HURR Board of Directors require 75% of the votes cast at that meeting to be in favour of the Scheme. That is not 75% of HURR shares on the company register; it is 75% of the shares voted at the meeting.
This is where the disenfranchised beneficial owners of HURR shares can influence events, as they can vote all their HURR shares held in Brokers “nominee accounts. Your vote will count and influence the result.
Each individual Broker will have a different method of recording votes cast by the beneficial owners of HURR shares. These usually are by either “secure” message, a telephone call, or a corporate actions “voting” function on the Broker’s website.
For example, Interactive’s clients use a corporate action’s voting function – very easy and efficient. It would be helpful if posters could post the method used by their brokers so that others may benefit and vote.
In order to process these votes Brokers usually close the voting days before the meeting so it is critically essential to CAST VOTES TODAY!
We know you are watching this forum from your recent behaviour of actually posting RNs which were not at all necessary as were just scaremongering tactics as you can't normally be bothered to put out any much needed RNs to keep your shareholders informed/happy, you must be squirming because we have found the deals Hercules heel --- the court vote and objections !!!
You keep bleating on about who and how many shares and percentages for the G.meeting vote you have just improved on..... We know you may have a strong hand in this respect but certainly not a foregone conclusion.
But you never mention how you have strengthened your court vote stance and persuaded so many not to object !!??
Wonder why ? It's because you haven't and all you can do is play to your strengths which is the general meeting vote ! And we will do the same....
We will bleat on about our court vote and our objections till we reach as many votes and objections as possible and if all goes according to plan you won't even need the G.meeting vote as you will loose at the court meeting hurdle.
PRAX - if Stifel whilst concocting this convoluted deal informed you that this would be a walk in the park to get it over the line knowing that small investors don't have the share numbers for the G.meetung vote and either don't often know about the chance to vote and object with the court or just wouldn't bother then I suggest that you chose the wrong company to try and buy in convoluted way because with shareholders like ourselves you now have dilemmas !!!!!! We are a pain in the @ss, we are a thorn in your side and the judge will at least give us fair consideration where Hur/Prax/Stifel didn't - that's your bad and could be your loss !
Polite reminder,
So here is the email to send your objections to for the judge to ponder on whether he thinks this deal is fair to minority shareholders and make the subject line and heading of email the case number below. The Clerk in this office gave this email and said it would create a file for the judge to read at his leisure, so blow this email address up with relevant information guys
RE: Case number CR -2023-001420
chanceryjudgeslisting@justice.gov.uk
So be concise short-winded and make it easy for the judge to trawl through all the emails that are sent. On the voting court side of things each shareholder gets a vote per head rather than counted on share amounts as Senseman has just outlined from the meeting, there are far more of us than the institutional shareholders.... Thanks
Kever I call bull on the all we will ever get is 7p max if we don't agree to the deal whether RB said it or you made it up.... Just exercising my free speech
Keeves if you are implying the 60mil for extra decommissioning they threw out there recently then I honestly looked at that as scare tactics as similar to what Mariog was pointing out earlier, they will use fancy accounting to suit their agenda. They were quick to tell us that but slow to mention what the acreage of assets ( licences) that would be sold off at windup would be worth and any other assets which I'm sure could come to an ok amount ( haven't got a clue on amount but still relevant) But we didn't hear a whisper what the assets would be worth on wind up because it doesn't suit their agenda.
Kever
CA went throught his deal with a fine toothcomb. They are far more knowledgable than me. As a standlone it is 7p max by 2026 according to RB. If P6 failes tomorrow then 5p.
I would never relay a provate conversation on a forum like this. I have voted YES for the deal.
7p max and we already have roughly 6p in the bank right now so sounds like the well is due to fail by the end of next uplift guys we better vote yes hahahaha and if fails tomorrow its 5p does Prax know they are buying a potential lemon lol.
If RB really did actually say this then I put him in the same light as our trustworthy politicians we rely on to rule us poor s@ds with there continuous bull@hit, maybe that's what he will do when crystal is finally put to rest. RB for prime minister I say or maybe it's Kever for prime minister. I think Kever is the better candidate.
Oh and keeves it's private not provate........
Kever we actually agree on something that Maris should have gone after the debale last time.Agree.
Now tell me this please the 7p you talk of, did RB tell you this figure is all that the shareholders would be getting if we didn't take the deal when you spoke on the phone, was this his opinion or is it yours as it's hard to decipher as you never relayed any details from this important convo ? Please do enlighten ???
Kever
If that's the best argument you can come back with that my wording/grammar is not on point ( never is lol ) and not to waste my valuable time Hahaha don't make me laugh.
We don't want this stinking deal and probably most would prefer to keep taking the dividends until the black gold is no more for whatever reason even if we get less that the Prax long term offer through DCUs. If a good deal comes along then we will vote for it I'm sure, side note think most would love the chance to vote Marris out too.
Kever
Scupper the deal by sending a few pathetic emails ? More chance of seeing Elvis on your local high street. Stop wasting your time and effort. if the deal was rejected the alternative is far worse. I have voted YES for the deal.
I suppose you have read relevant details of numerous court cases where the judge has ruled in conjunction with the interests of the minority shareholders on fairness grounds using section 944 of the company's act 2006 as his tool for doing so ???
No I dont suppose you have or you wouldn't be spouting such one sided rubbish.
You seem more confident than the BOD as I've seen they have had Morrow Sodali ringing round doing a bit of market research to see which way private investors are leaning, they definitely wouldn't be doing this @hit if they were so sure of the deal flying through would they.
As I respect people voting no in this scenario to suit their own needs, some loose all credibility when they make out this is a foregone conclusion just to suit their own agenda.............................
Thanks for that insight Oldman I'm not knowledgeable enough to know the answer myself, any work around anyone if this won't work ?
Obviously if there is 100% no way round this and shareholders with institutional brokers like HL loose their individual vote then this can then be turned in to an objection in it's self to put to the judge, silver linings and all that lol.
If I'm correct this is the best way to go for the court vote for shareholders with mainstream brokers that would only count as 1 vote for NO.
Here is the link to the blue proxy voting slip for the court vote.
https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/investors/formal-sale-process
Look under scheme documents second paragraph down
Court_and_GM_Proxies.pdf. - this is what you need to download and print off and post.
Kever you have a big gob for someone who obviously knows little about how the court voting and objections work that can definitely scupper this deal.
So here is the email to send your objections to for the judge to ponder on whether he thinks this deal is fair to minority shareholders and make the subject line and heading of email the case number below. The Clerk in this office gave this email and said it would create a file for the judge to read at his leisure, so blow this email address up with relevant information guys
RE: Case number CR -2023-001420
chanceryjudgeslisting@justice.gov.uk
So be concise short-winded and make it easy for the judge to trawl through all the emails that are sent. On the voting court side of things each shareholder gets a vote per head rather than counted on share amounts as Senseman has just outlined from the meeting, there are far more of us than the institutional shareholders....
So our brokers would only count as 1 so I personally think ditch the brokers court vote and print off ( hur web site) and send vote manually by post to make sure we win that vote, thoughts/floors in this idea v.welcome if this will work ??
Also guys if any on here are subscribed to any other Hur forums elsewhere that might be interested in objecting please pass on this email and the case number. Thanks
cr.2023.001420@gmail.com
Hahahahaha I did laugh to myself this morning reading Hur RNs, MATCHED BARGAIN FACILITY haha even if this is a thing and not a made up tool it just made it sound like Poundland had come in on the act for a bit of sweetening.
Who are you kidding Hur/prax, you can't spray air freshener on this turd of a deal trying to disguise the stench.
Just a reminder guys of the email address to send your objections to for the judge ponder on wherever this scheme of arrangement is fair for the shareholders who are not in favour of the scheme.
Please don't leave it to others so pull your finger out and start typing......
cr.2023.001420@gmail.com
I have emailed Hargreaves for some clarification on this too Sense, I will post their response when I get an answer.
Exactly Proinvest well spotted back then ! I've been banging on about how important the court vote/objections are for our best chance of winning. Now posters have seen this from Hur hopefully more will be inspired to vote. And of co**** we can object which a few of us are working on right now. Thanks
From Hurricane Coms...
RE: Urgent attention Court vote
For ease of reference we have answered your queries in red below:
1. How exactly are the votes counted on the court vote as in is the vote decided on the number of shares voted or on the number of shareholders ? 2. What is the threshold for the court vote passing as a yes/for
At the Court Meeting, voting will be by poll and each Scheme Shareholder present in person or by proxy will be entitled to one vote for each Scheme Share held as at the Voting Record Time. The approval required at the Court Meeting is a majority in number of those Scheme Shareholders present and voting (and entitled to vote) in person or by proxy, representing 75 per cent or more in value of the Scheme Shares voted by such Scheme Shareholders.
3. What is the procedure for objecting to the proposed scheme at the courts meetings under section 994 of companies act 2006 eg. time scales, how to object and where to object?
Shareholders will have an opportunity to speak at both the Court Meeting and the General Meeting in order to voice any objections they may have and are of course entitled to vote either in favour of or against the Scheme either via the proxy form or voting in person at the Meeting. We suggest that you consult a legal adviser should you require advice on the process to oppose the Scheme in Court.
Kind regards
Brains, interesting reading and thanks for adding. The more I read details on previous cases the more I think our chances are improving as the judges seem very on the ball at turning down these schemes if there is any hint of unfairness or lack of disclosure or any underhand tactics what’s so ever. We really can win this just on the court objections and votes as long as we all vote and come up with some realistic objections.
Posters who have read through the info on the scheme may have found there is not much mention of voting or let alone objecting at the court stage, the court is this schemes Achilles heel for hurricane and they know it or else why would they be under playing it and not elaborating on it to any degree on the info they give us..
Brains link also has other links to read on the courts role in the scheme of arrangement, well worth a read….. Thanks
Will also try to set up forwarding so when mail is sent to this address from us posters it forwards to any one that has already interacted on this email that would like this to be set up so as to keep up to date, you can opt in or out there’s no obligation... Hope I made sense there…