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.
Here is an email I've set up, I've incorporated the court case number in the address. When the case is settled I will delete this account so as I don't have a record of people's email addresses.
cr.2023.001420@gmail.com
Thanks
Thanks again for your encouragement to keep going with this, just the few of you posting gave me the enthusiasm to keep going and the offer of some help is what was needed, please any other posters that have any ideas for objections please please please don’t hesitate to put them on here or if we set up an email with the address on here for you to use.Ta
Brains,
Thanks for the link I will have good look later to see if there’s any info in there that can help.
Dflynch,
Thanks for your input and kind words, I totally agree on your idea that collating the case objections may not be a good idea for all to see, but I also think what if hurricane and prax are reading everything and come to the conclusion we may win the judge over and ditch this particular deal and come back with the correct deal of 12 1/2 pence upfront and then the 6 pence of DCUs later as a sweetener. Hahahaha I know we are not going to get that but that is what the deal should really be. So I’m open-minded on whether we should do this online or behind closed doors. I’m not really too sure which is best.
DriveC,
I am open to this suggestion of premium member or the setting up of a temp email, I really am up for what ever is easiest… As far as a barrister needed I don’t think from the info I have found that one is needed, don’t get me wrong if a barrister were the one that was collating all the objections and utilised company law to put to the judge It might be an advantage but from my own point of view all my money is in this @loody Share lol so I couldn’t afford to do this, unless it was a very very small share of the costs. Thanks
Senseman
Thanks Senseman for your input, yes, I have come across cases to where the judge has sided with the minority shareholders and we could put or not put this into the objections to outline precedence if we think that would help. But at the very least it might be worth putting them on the forum for the posters to see objections are worthwhile, I think I’ve saved somewhere the name of one of the cases that I can post if we think it will help.
I can only relay sense about how the vote will work from the snippets of info I have come across on sites but I couldn’t find any links on government websites with the information to post, I have emailed hurricane twice and I’m waiting for a reply which if they don’t reply it will go in our favour because we will put this in our objections that we tried to understand the process and hurricane by not responding could be seen as trying to block us from our right to object. I know this train of action might seem childish but it really does help our cause with the judge as I’ve read instances where it seemed to help.
And as far as the vote goes all I can ascertain up to now is the judge looks at how many shareholders e.g. the headcount vote for the scheme or vote against it. I brought it up in a previous post that a judge ruling on a scheme where some large shareholders gave some of their shares to lots of individuals whom would vote with them to try and get their headcount up because they are just a just a few and the judge looked badly upon these tactics and ruled against them.
Setting up an temp email is no problem if we think that’s the way to go as it probably is the easiest way of communicating and I am happy to do it unless somebody else would like to. Also setting up an email might entice some of your shy posters to put some of the objections forward too so it probably is a good idea….
I will start to save all the suggestions to file Sense that you and others have made. Thanks again for your input and I understand you can’t commit too much time to this but any input would be greatly received as you seem very good at this sort of stuff.
Pics,
Thank you any any of the help you have offered would be greatly appreciated, from what I can gather up to now we just have to collate a clear concise list of objections for the judge to understand as easily as possible to ascertain whether he thinks the deal is fair on the minority shareholders. Whilst trying to understand how this process would work I ended up reading cases similar to our situation being heard by a judge ruling on a schedule of arrangement and from what I can gather they really do take the minority shareholders into consideration if they bother to have objected to the judge. Thanks
Thanks guys for the encouragement & ideas much appreciated, will look at it all in the morn and we can start a plan with all your suggestions to get the ball rolling.
Court objections
Guys hardly any of you ( odd 1 ) shareholders have piped up and talked through with me or with others on here the efficacy of my approach on using the court to help getting this deal dumped.
I honestly think it really is our very best shot as seems the court vote is on the head count of shareholders for or against ( let's face it there about 90 of us No's just on here ) instead of the mountain to climb for the general meeting vote which is counted on shares which is not impossible to win but alot harder, there also is the added bonus of we can make objections to the scheme on the basis of it being unfair to minority shareholders for the judge to see and by the standard of section 994 of the companies act 2006 they have to take this into consideration as to whether he thinks it is fair deal the minority shareholders.
I learnt today of how to put the objections through to the court for the judge but it needs better minds than mine to decide on what objections are feasible and then to structure the objections, my grammar is @hit and I'm not very articulate either so when the judge is reading our objections we want him to take us seriously but I feel under qualified to achieve this so what's needed is someone to step up and help me !?
Senseman is good at this stuff but he has already done tonnes for us which i thank you Sense.... And would not want burden him further unless he had the time and inclination.
Sense has done the donkey work to compile the questions to put to the board so that's more or less out of the way for now untill getting the answers at the meeting and so then there is this route too that in my mind should not be ignored. It might be more sensible to wait till after the Q/A meeting to tackle this but then again maybe not wise either as...
Guys I'm walking away from this if I don't get any back up with it or am happy for someone to take it on or just ignore it then I would know I'm flogging a dead donkey here so I just wont bother pursuing this and maybe just sell my 900+k shares out to be done with it and you won't have to hear my ramblings no more, Ive spent tonnes and tonnes of hours looking into this as I had no idea how any of it worked so I'm not *****ing for no reason and get you lot might just disagree with my train of thought for this direction, I'm not after thanks/recognition what so ever but need help or someone to take the reins... Sorry for the long winded post. Thanks
Understood. If I get time today I will try and talk to the same Clark again and put that to them does it make any difference if it's a meeting or a hearing as far as a date showing up on their list. I was only ringing the court to find out where objections could be sent for the judge to review before the court meeting date but no joy as of yet to that info. Waiting to hear back from Hurricane on this too.
And note guys it says the judge likes to see as many votes as possible so he can get an idea of shareholders thoughts and feelings numbers on the deal....
The Clark says as it's being heard by high court judge there should still be a date set on his system if it has been booked.. enlighten me if you know otherwise Asi please as it's a slog trying to trudge through court system.
NOTICE OF COURT MEETING
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CR-2023-001420
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMPANIES COURT (ChD)
IN THE MATTER OF HURRICANE ENERGY PLC
and
IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2006
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, by an order dated 5 April 2023 made in the above matters, the Court
has given permission for a meeting (the “Court Meeting”) to be convened of the holders of Scheme
Shares as at the Voting Record Time (each as defined in the Scheme (as defined below)) for the
purpose of considering and, if thought fit, approving (with or without modification) a scheme of
arrangement (the “Scheme”) pursuant to Part 26 of the Companies Act 2006 (the “Companies Act”)
between Hurricane Energy plc (the “Company”) and the holders of Scheme Shares and that the Court
Meeting will be held at The Science Room, Royal Society of Chemistry, Burlington House, Piccadilly,
London W1J 0BA at 10.00 a.m. on 4 May 2023, at which place and time all Scheme Shareholders (as
defined in the Scheme) are requested to attend.
A copy of the Scheme and a copy of the explanatory statement required to be published pursuant to
section 897 of the Companies Act are incorporated in the Document of which this notice forms part.
Unless the context requires otherwise, any capitalised term used but not defined in this notice shall
have the meaning given to such term in the Document of which this notice forms part.
Voting on the resolution to approve the Scheme will be by poll, which shall be conducted as the Chair
of the Court Meeting may determine.
Any changes to the arrangements for the Court Meeting will be communicated to you before the Court
Meeting, through Hurricane’s website at https://www.hurricaneenergy.com/investors and by
announcement through a Regulatory Information Service.
Right to Appoint a Proxy; Procedure for Appointment
Voting at the Court Meeting will be by poll. It is important that, for the Court Meeting, as many votes
as possible are cast so that the Court may be satisfied that there is a fair representation of
opinion of Scheme Shareholders. Scheme Shareholders entitled to attend and vote at the Court
Meeting may vote in person or they may appoint another person, whether a member of the Company
or not, as their proxy to attend and vote at the Court Meeting. Scheme Shareholders are strongly
encouraged to submit proxy appointments and instructions for the Court Meeting as soon as possible,
using any of the methods (by post, online or electronically through CREST) set out below.
The completion and return of the BLUE Form of Proxy by post (or transmission of a proxy appointment
or voting instruction electronically, online, through CREST or by any other procedure described below)
will not prevent you from attending and voting at the Court Meeting if you are entitled to and wish to
do so.
(a) Sending BLUE Form of Proxy by post
A BLUE Form of Proxy, for use at the Court Meeting, has been provided with
Very strange the chancery Clark from Justice court says there is no court date booked for the 4th may at 10.00am.
Broomtree we are not loosing a fighting battle we have the court vote too which I am still trying to get confirmation on how exactly the vote works,...
Up to now with the limited info I can find it still looks like 75% to win the vote but on share holders numbers rather than share number's and we can also put objections forward.
And from what I can gather there is a workaround of something called split shares where the big companies dish out a load of small amounts of shares to individuals to vote with them to get their numbers up but I have also found information where the courts frown upon this behaviour and then rule against the deal anyway because they have tried underhand tactics.
If anyone has any info that proves me incorrect then shout up whether your a yes or a no vote as I'm struggling to get definitive information on this presently.
Sent (3)
Asi, yes I had forgotten the employees are to be getting their palm's greased if the deal goes ahead, on that basis i relish the idea of being an employee right now rather than being a shareholder with this convoluted sham of a deal in the pipeline concocted by individuals who's sleight of hand is their superpower.................
NSTiger,
Yes I got that letter today too and wish I had waited till today and just voted by post as Lloyds
yesterday even tried to tell me it was to soon to vote but then made the mistake of telling me they were about to send letters out so then I asked what was in the letter and then of co**** after they told me the contents they allowed me to vote. Hahaha
Yes I would love to know what Hur employees think of the deal ( apart from the BOD) as I have had that question in my head since last week wondering what thier take is on it all. I hope they are all with us on the no no no campaign. Thanks
NSTiger,
I'm with Lloyds and hargraves and I've already last week voted general meeting vote with hargraves ( got to do the court vote yet ) but Lloyds is useless as rang yesterday and was like pulling teeth... I did manage to vote in the end but wasn't easy...
Does anyone know how the court hearing votes will be worked out/counted as far as a yes or no win vote before I spend precious time researching it ??
As I see it the court vote has become more initially prevalent now because it is scheduled before the general.M vote it really has become our 1st shot at killing this deal and maybe our best shot as we can also object too so we need to get our ducks in a row as far as strategy.
Looked into other routes for objections and I think objections to NSTA under the United Kingdom National Security and Investment Act 2021 is a dead end unless anyone has come across any reasons why the deal is negative on the grounds of national security.
I think Dflynch posts are an interesting angle tho
n addition to Court and Hurricane shareholder approval, the Scheme is also subject to satisfaction (or, where applicable, waiver) of the other conditions set out in the Scheme Document, including approval from the North Sea Transition Authority ("NSTA") and approval under the United Kingdom National Security and Investment Act 2021 ("NSIA"), and the approval of the Court. The Scheme is expected to become effective in Q2 2023.
Look Richard kindly gave us a list of other governing bodies to object too, that's if they are not a closed shop but I will research it later.
Just thinking about my own question, the time of the two votes are obviously closed and results forthwith so maybe it doesn't matter whether court vote is 15mins before or after but maybe it's a case of Hur wanted us to focus on the general meeting vote ( schedule of arrangement) rather than the court vote as if the no's lost and say the court vote was a week later we would really round more so aswoukd be our last chance and maybe crack the nut and get it denied so maybe Hur thinks putting it so close we would be so wrapped up in the other vote and ignore the court one.
Now please correct me if I've got the voting closed and results forthwith for the court and general meeting vote totally wrong as I'm not that knowledgeable about these matters and maybe barking at the wrong tree with duff info lol ??
Does anyone know why the court vote on the deal is being held before the vote on the resolutions for the scheme of arrangement to be voted Yes or no ??Any theories ??????
With the bit of research I've done it's normally the other way around but not stated it has to be anyway round as if agreed with all parties before hand.
It seems it goes in our favour this way round if enough of us vote on the court vote with our objections too, the whole deal could be denied and squashed by by a judge if they thought it to be an unfair deal for minority shareholders.
But why would Hur risk this ( maybe should be a question for the list Sensman ) it just doesn't feel right that they would risk it this way round, there must be a good reason but I'm struggling to come up with one. Thanks