Member Info for mugpunter

Just read their annual results. Higgs must have a very sick feeling in his middle regions this morning. A man under pressure I assume. Henry can not let things carry on like this. IMHO. Maybe this is why their senior NEDs walked the other week.

MOG now have a market cap less than LGO. If LGO win the court case and wipe out MOG's cash at bank and more MOG won't be worth even 4.6p. Let's see what the judge says.

Why would two senior non-execs resign on the same day when it appears they represent the major shareholder Och-Ziff who have 29% of MOG. Surely the few grand a month non-exec pays when MOG have £14m in the bank as per last accounts and a free funded Malta drilling programme with Genel.. I don't think it's about saving money Zoo. Something smells fishy IMHO.

Were these 2 directors pushed or jumped off the ship. They represent Och-Ziff and their 30% do they not. Very strange they resigned on the same day. Questions need to be asked why.

I heard they are up on site yesterday. Hopefully rapid progress. They have the money and a very strong major shareholder.

The following key points are from my notes.. LGO barrister: "Further information. Tab 3 CMC bundle. Critical request in 7 & 8. 1. statement 10 July by Dr. Higgs was untrue and misleading 2. or that it became untrue or misleading by 31 July. (If?) discussion started on 9 July with Genel. Suppose Dr. Higgs then makes a call, negotiations being serious. We say it is dishonest for Dr. Higgs to allow Mr. Ritson to think that there were no negotiations. Was what was said misleading? It is going to be a factual issue. Dr. Higgs has apparently denied that there were serious negotiations at 10 July. I can't understand the defence's resistance in making it clear. The Court needs to understand what MOG's case is. We know there were negotiations. They just don't wat to comply" Justice Clarke: "Yup" and then: MOG barrister: "We admit that MOG were in discussion with Genel on 10 July" Justice Clarke: "They had begun on 10 July" (said as a question?) MOG barrister: "We admit that negotiations had begun in earnest on 10 July, para. 12a of the defence. Were in discussion on heads of terms. Serious negotiations between MOG and Genel" Justice Clarke: "You're saying if the (something)" MOG barrister: "This case is about the call on 10 July" LGO barrister: "I'm grateful for the ground that we have made" Justice Clarke: It's now conceded (that the negotiations were serious)" LGO barrister: 1. Central to the facts, 2. Essential to facts...(something) to Dr. Higg's state of mind, was he intending to mislead? Suppose the pen was 'hovering on the paper' on 10 July. The trial judge is likely to conclude that Dr. Higgs was trying to put Mr. Ritson off the scent. What was the state of negotiations on 10 July" Justice Clarke: "How 'serious and earnest' is material" and: Justice Clarke: "It is not appropriate to order particulars now. The defence admit that the Farm-out negotiations had begun in earnest, were 'serious', at 10 July. It follows that if the representations were that they were not, they are false. And this would also be taken on, from 10 July. I can see the claimant's point regarding how serious and how earnest, materiality. I don't think it necessary or appropriate to order particulars now. (a) the parties should give disclosure, then (b) witness statements" LGO barrister: "Two short points on disclosure. (1) search of Mr. Liberini's emails re. 3D seismic data, critical to know what was available. Mr. Liberini is the geoscientist in charge of 3D capture" Justice Clarke: "Did he give data to Genel?" LGO barrister: "We don't know" Justice Clarke: "The records of anyone who was a conduit for analysis" (Justice Clarke, who is not unfamiliar with oil and gas, then said he didn't want vast quantities of 3D seismic data being present

It relates to MOG getting a beating yesterday.

Looking at ADVFN, there was a witness to proceedings. MOG lost everything in the CMC hearing and ordered to pay full costs. Not taxed, but full. MOG even admitted apparently they were in serious discussions with Genel prior to LGO selling out. Oh to be a fly on the wall at MOG board room. Common sense dictates you can not tell your partner there is nothing going on, and on the other side be negotiating a 100 million dollar farm in with Genel. Go figure. No wonder Ritson at LGO is not too pleased.

Bottom line is the way Working Interests work is that each party can only deal with their own respective interest, So MOG can only deal with Genel with their 90% WI in Malta, if LGO get the High Court to over turn the sale due to fraudulent misrepresentation. If LGO win, they are asking the High Court to overturn the sale for $1 and get LGO's stake of 10% WI re-instated. PLus daamages. MOG would own 15% WI in Malta and get $10m. LGO would have 10% and Genel 75%. Genel would then go and drill 2 wells. I also think Malta Government are not happy with the situation, which is why the deal with Genel has not been approved.

If LGO wins, MOG will drop from 25% of Malta to 15% of Malta and LGO will get 10% of 2 funded holes on these big oil targets. Cost to LGO, Court costs either way, If they win, then LGO will get their court costs back. If LGO lose, they lose a few hundred thousand by paying MOG court costs. But Ritson is a cautious chap, so he wouldn't have gone legal unless he had a good chance. Mishcon are a good firm and their website says best litigators for 2012.

Regarding your post about Lenigas. Look at VGM. He is an executive director and was the guy who did the deal for River Diamonds to buy the Fiji Gold Mine. Shares trading at a high with a real business and a market cap of £145 million. Do you stand corrected now. It has taken him 5 years to sort our River Diamonds (now VGM). When he took over Lonrho, they had one hotel in Mozambique. He has been in the Lonrho job for a few years and things are getting a lot bigger.

This looks crazy.