Member Info for Mamms

King and Spalding were Counsel on the case, Ahurst were their lawyers.

Ahurst do not come cheap - they take about 20% of any award in lieu of payment. No funding needed.

I assume the reason LOGP went for them (or vice versa) is that they acted for Rockhopper so they have form in this area.

LOGP will not take BEY under their wing. It complicates and confuses many issues - LOGP will go it alone, if they were even considering it they would not have started their action already. It also suggests to me that LOGP do not think BEY will go for JR (I would make the same assessment as it looks pointless).

All those things that people are incensed about, those are precisely the kind of things what will not be considered under judicial review.

Manyana, BEY has no right of appeal on the merits. The only avenue is judicial review. Did the Department follow the correct process and follow each step in that process? They can set out their own process and procedures (it does not need to be adopted in primary legislation, it can be set out by a judicial or quasi-judicial body by delegated act as it is in this instance) and then follow them - that is what they've done in this instance. The only question in judicial review is whether the procedure and process that applies was followed. The answer is yes.

Is the decision fair? Was the process itself fair and reasonable? Was the decision reasonable? Does it undermine or prejudice the applicants rights? Those are questions that are only considered in the merits of the case. All these questions are questions that are not even considered in judicial review.

The only chink is whether the delay in taking a decision was effectively a refusal but I would say 'no'.

Even if Goodman is down 12m, I doubt he'll throw another 1m down the jacks after it.

I'd say at best it's 50/50. They will first have to persuade the arbitration court that the decision was not 'on the merits' but that it was politically motivated. As observed, the fact that the lack of financial strength cited by the refusal, was followed by the consortium folding does not look good. That the use of certain metrics (3.5 times cover) is at the minister's discretion is not a problem and that he uses it one way or the other is not a problem per se. I would expect the department will argue that given the future path of fossil fuel investment (it will cease over the next decades) the dept needed assurances from BROE but given that raising finance for renewables will be possible in the long term, such a requirement isn't necessary since those schemes can go back to the capital markets with confidence.

That seems a perfectly reasonable line of argument to me.

On the other hand, standing back and looking at the delays, the decision process and the political background, in the round it looks like a politically motivated and arbitrary decision - but I am biased so let's see.

At best 50/50.

You highlight the limitation of the Judicial Review - It does not matter that Ryan's decision was harsh requiring 3.5 times cover - was it lawful? Yes, it is legal to make this a requirement since it is a recommended requirement and subject to the minister's discretion. I don't expect any JR and for BEY to fold or if a JR happens, it is unlikely to be successful. All a JR will do it delay the inevitable. LOGP can pursue damages - it's a 50/50 at best.

At this stage probably better for LOGP if BEY is wound up and the damages claim can get going under international arbitration. If BEY win on review (seems unlikely) then Ryan appeals, leading to a 3 year delay before the next step. Maybe BEY is still funded in 3 years, maybe not. Better just to pull the plug and move on....

Will LOGP delist as well? Their raison d'etre no longer exists, all it is doing now is pursuing a compensation claim through arbitration. Do they need to stay listed or will they just cut all costs to the bare minimum while the lawyers duke it out - I assume the lawyers will be engaged on a no-foal no-fee basis, as Rockhopper did? I mean Steve could stay on as a low cost caretaker, it'll probably take 3-4 years for the case, if successful another 2 for the appeal and then any payout if it arises. Just pull up the drawbridge for the current shareholders on the register, costs would fall to a pittance....

That's it. Large shareholders will not throw good money after bad. I doubt the tax losses are either that high or valuable. Remember, there will also be quite a few liabilities outstanding. It's a shame, if ToR had gone for BROE instead of wildcatting off the west coast... Who knows. Anyway, that's it. LoGP might (at best 50/50) get compensation through international arbitration - it will be expensive (they'll have to give up at least 20/30% of any award) but they could avoid any ongoing expenses. Sorry for all the genuine BEY longs, it amounted to abuse over the years.

At least it's over now.

Or just dump? or rumour mill in action??

No, board are just covering themselves because many people seem to have missed the message. BEY is bust and unless someone writes a big cheque in 3 weeks, then it's goodnight. No one is going to write a big cheque - the Department followed the procedure (no one on this board ever said they had failed to do something or that they missed a step). The question of the quality or correctness of the decision is irrelevant in a judicial review. There is no assessment on the merits.

BEY is gone.

Never produced 1 barrel of oil.

Maybe they'll get an award for environmentalism.

Wait till a bad winter hits. What a pack of morons on all sides.

I think that based on today's announcements, BEY is no longer relevant to any discussions. LOGP is now a 50/50 bet on the outcome of the international arbitration which they can pursue without upfront or ongoing cost. If they win they'll get to keep 80% of any award for distribution to shareholders.

Must be over for BEY now. LOGP will presumably pass their case over on a no foal no fee basis to the guys who did rockhopper - maybe settle ahead of the case but BEY have nothing. Can't see LG and the others throwing good money after bad....

@NigelHaemoglobin, If the Govt do a deal (now) with LOGP for £30m, they kill any recourse by BEY. The thing is, LOGP's action can be judged on the merits with a reasonable inference (balance of probabilities) on whether the decision was misdirected for political policy goals (answer 'yes') - as a domestic Irish enterprise that route is not open to BEY. BEY is stuck with judicial review which is more or less meaningless - basically did the Department follow all the steps in the procedure -it doesn't matter if it is a good or bad process, if it was applied in a correct manner, if the analysis is good or bad. If the procedure has been followed then it passes judicial review. I'd say BEY know this, that's why LOGP proposed the reverse merger wherein LOGP buy BEY very, very cheaply ......

If the Gov't had an ounce of sense, they ought to settle early with LOGP and cut off that route for BEY.

30m would do it I reckon.

Judicial review is a very (very) limited assessment of process. It does not consider the merits of the case at all - so for instance setting a bananas fiduciary requirement as in this case would not be considered, or the fact that the guidelines are not-binding or the fact that the original license pre-dates those guidelines, none of that will be considered in judicial review. The only issue will be whether the required procedure was reasonably followed. I don't know all the details of the process, it could be that the original delay might be a breach, or something else, but very little gets overturned on judicial review and I have not seen anyone to date claim that a set was not followed. I expect BROE will reverse merge into LOGP to give them a right to join the proceedings which will consider the merits. I would also expect that Boldy will take a pound of BROE flesh in the process - LOGP would seem to be the better partner to be in by some distance.

Beardozer, if you look at Rockhopper as a comparator - total legal costs to Rockhopper shareholders (they won) were over $50m - you'll get the links in the last post.

So anything that goes to court can never be predicted. LOGP might win or lose, who knows. However, the rockhopper claim is interesting. They claimed €280m and were awarded €190m - note it was not Rockhopper's licence, they simply bought the firm that had been awarded the licence for €29.2m about 12 months before the ban/refusal. The details are very different so there is ZERO read across except that (a) it's the potential rather than monies spent that guides the award and (b) even though the legal firm taking the case for Rockhopper snaffled 20% in fees for themselves (in a no foal, no fee arrangement), the award was backdated to the decision (so Ryan delaying a decision for 2 years has saved millions in the event of a payout). It took six years for the arbitration to reach a decision so interest added about €60m in that instance. Administrations aren't stupid so they will be trying very hard to say the refusal is not linked to policy - it's not very credible but therein lies the rub. However, it also seems that in that case, the details really matter, it's not some kind of judicial review and it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt - more balance of probabilities. If LOGP are successful and the award was proportionate and the initial claim is 100m dollars, it implies that after fees and then adding interest etc. LOGP would be awarded £56m sterling in 2029..... The legal costs will be enormous and neither side can be confident - seems to me, both sides ought to be seeking an early settlement given the overall context....

BTW all the rockhopper case details can be accessed here https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/800/rockhopper-v-italy

So anything that goes to court can never be predicted. LOGP might win or lose, who knows. However, the rockhopper claim is interesting. They claimed €280m and were awarded €190m - note it was not Rockhopper's licence, they simply bought the firm that had been awarded the licence for €29.2m about 12 months before the ban/refusal. The details are very different so there is ZERO read across except that (a) it's the potential rather than monies spent that guides the award and (b) even though the legal firm taking the case for Rockhopper snaffled 20% in fees for themselves (in a no foal, no fee arrangement), the award was backdated to the decision (so Ryan delaying a decision for 2 years has saved millions in the event of a payout). It took six years for the arbitration to reach a decision so interest added about €60m in that instance. Administrations aren't stupid so they will be trying very hard to say the refusal is not linked to policy - it's not very credible but therein lies the rub. However, it also seems that in that case, the details really matter, it's not some kind of judicial review and it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt - more balance of probabilities. If LOGP are successful and the award was proportionate and the initial claim is 100m dollars, it implies that after fees and then adding interest etc. LOGP would be awarded £56m sterling in 2029..... The legal costs will be enormous and neither side can be confident - seems to me, both sides ought to be seeking an early settlement given the overall context....

BTW all the rockhopper case details can be accessed here https://investmentpolicy.unctad.org/investment-dispute-settlement/cases/800/rockhopper-v-italy

The Government speaks out of both sides of its mouth, they say they will honour existing licenses but then effectively block them. The SP movements might suggests a refusal is coming but, as I understand it, LG has screwed existing shareholders to such an extent that the existing shares are worth a fraction of a penny? BEY is 1.5p with 1.2bn shares, so say 18m valuation - it's going to borrow 60m (not equity!) and the no. of shares will shoot up by a factor of 10. Even if the Government give the permit to do the next exploratory drill tomorrow, I expect the BEY SP to fall significantly.... Does anyone know how LOGP are funding their share or are they getting a carry until the permit is issued?