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.
This came from Phipps senior Garbled was correct, also the comments made ...largely came true. We found the black gold.
What nobody knew or thought about significantly was the difficulty raising the funding for its extraction, this has been the elephant in the room for many years.
Argentina really put the spanner in the works as well and the British government allowed that, so I think this has been the surprise, the lack of support from the British government. They could have got this off the ground with the right encouragement.
I don’t blame Garbled for the position we are in, but I do feel let down by the British government for not supporting the endeavours of Falkland island exploration and capitalisation of assets.
Of course I am invested so I want RKH to win and win big.
But there was a rejection of the production concession about & months before RKH finalised their purchase of MOG and the Italy state defence lawyers will probably state that this showed that their was a doubt the concession would ever be approved. The reasons for that rejection of the concession are important, because if just environmental, the EIA was approved subsequently...so it follows the production concession should have? Otherwise why would RKH waste their money doing an EIA if the production concession was never coming ?
I think we will do ok
Due diligence and mitigation of losses are definitely 2 of the main defence claims.
Whether we think they are rubbish or not.
The lawyers for the state will try and make a case that RKH should have known that there was some risk that OM didn’t proceed when they bought MOG...hence the due diligence issue.
The other case is that RKH should have stated in their contract with MOG if they aren’t award a production concession then they get compensated ...insured against basically.
We can consider this unreasonable given the progress that MOG made and approvals by Italy state, but if you were a lawyer the points of due diligence and mitigation maybe the only defence you have.
From what I have read so far...I think the odds are certainly in favour that we are awarded a claim, I’ll be disappointed if anything less then 50%
What do we need the “cash now” for?
Surely we just need to keep the lights on?
I’d rather have the full claim spread over time.
100m, 200M, 300M isn’t going to get Sealion off the ground, we need someone with bigger financial clout to stump that up
In my opinion
The award is key, how much...I wouldn’t want that diluted personally
The board still have some hobnobs left
I thought yesterday was Rockbottom...no pun intended.
But we all been here before...I was never selling at those prices. The OM claim is a solid one and the likelihood is we get paid out at least 50%, with this the company is viable for quite a while and if able to use the time wisely to gain the financial backing for a scaled down production plan of Sea Lion....the gamble is back on
The production concession wasn’t approved...this will be the Italian Government’s point, so the development was always at risk until that time.
For me it’s a weak argument, you don’t invest countless millions and then they suddenly don’t allow you to produce. More likely they only give you the production concession after you have been through a process and completed the necessary pre work. It’s a kind of milestone event.
Either way, sentiment is everything...if we get the claim approved and it’s at least 50%, the sop will follow....some positivity on Navitas and for me we are much better than position waiting for a claim and shackled by the PMO farm out. Hopefully we reached the bottom and will come up for air .
On this point, Italy could object to the Claimant that it did not carry out an exhaustive due diligence prior to making the investment, as its failed to assess correctly the feasibility of its project on the basis of the circumstances available when it took the decision to invest. Indeed, tribunals have recognized that Claimant’s own conduct in the course of obtaining the investment undermines the chances of a successful FET claim every time a failure to exercise due diligence is shown in the undertaking of a viability study of the project before investing therein. Even if RKH was subrogated to MOG in all its rights by means of its acquisition, the content of these rights is not the same where the core element of the causa petendi is the legitimate expectations the rightsholder might have at the time he/she made the investment (being these moments different in time). Since by the time the Claimant made its investment (by closing the acquisition of MOG in August 2014), the government had already enacted, in June 2010, a decree banning oil concessions near the coasts and an Administrative Court had already intervened in April 2014 by upholding the Government’s refusal to grant MOG the relevant concession (because further environmental assessments were necessary due to the complexity of the project), RKH’s expectations with respect to that oilfield definitely could not have been as high as those of MOG when it first discovered it in 2008.
Tribunals have also recognized claimant’s duty to mitigate the damages suffered. Italy indeed could contend that it was Claimant’s duty to reduce such damages by relying on the prudent means available in M&A deals. For instance, RKH should have set the grant of the production concession either as a condition precedent to the closing of the acquisition, or ask MOG to make it an item of a specific representation subject to an indemnity in the event of non-attainment thereof, or ask for a price reduction given that RKH was not awarded therewith. Of course, since the details of the acquisition are confidential, in case RKH did address this matter in such a cautious way in the SPA, there might be risk of double recovery.
All from Kluwers arbitration blog
(Most likely) Outcome: 50% off
In cases where the respondent proved investor’s lack of due diligence or failure to minimize losses, tribunals often made the Solomonic decision of reducing by 50% the amount of damages awarded (e.g. MTD v Chile, Award § 244–246; EDF v. Argentina, Award § 1302-1312), by holding the claimant accountable for half of its own losses and the host State liable for the other half.
The above copied from Kluwers arbitration blog...makes a good read in the case
Think about it, if the Italians had won the case they wouldn’t be throwing in this last ditch effort?
For me it means RKH has won , it’s just the amount that is unknown. I stand by what I said yesterday in my opinion yesterday was the bottom, if I had some spare cash I would be adding because I think this could be 10p when the case is announced ...not ramping...it’s a risky share as we all know by now.
Good luck
I wrote to Sam (email) and he wrote back personally. I think there were some poor decisions along the way, the PMO farm out was disaster really as time was (and still is) the biggest factor. Maybe we should have packaged the deal differently and made it more attractive for share holders. That said Sam did reply and ended it with any more questions ...please ask.
My guess is we are at or close to the bottom, if you look historically this is where we sit when all confidence is lost. A good OM decision (is what I expect) should be back over 10p. Then we either need a partner who can invest or sell up. I’d take 20p a share and/or a share offer in the new company who buys. Say 20p cash and shares that would give us equivalent of 10-20% of any sea lion profits generated....I’d be happy with that...not the get rich scheme I wanted...but steady clawback of lost assets.