Member Info for ronwoking

As may be surmised my confidence in the current BOD is at a level of zero.
There are provisions in the companies articles to postpone the AGM for exceptional circumstances.I put nothing past this board to create this argument whether justifiable or not.
Also the chairman has quite wide powers to adjourn the AGM to a later date especially if it gets disruptive.
Turkeys do not vote for Xmas and for this board Xmas is coming early this year.
Howver I am confident that CA are smart enough to have a plan B if the board plan any shenanigans.

Midget
I hope your right,but I am not sure that the CA directors constitute a majority on the board.
I suspect that if a majority vote to postpone the agm,it would pass.Perhaps CA would have a remedy.

I believe that is possible that the bod may wish to postpone the agm to later in the year.I think that a postponement is allowed under the rules.
Considering the likely inevitable replacement of the bod and others at the agm . It Would seem logical and consistent behaviour for them to try and hang on for as long as possible.

The history of the Budapest memorandum shows how careful one has to be about the wording in such documents.
The memorandum was part of a nuclear non proliferation desire to reduce the number of the countries with nuclear capability.In the case of Ukraine I believe that although Ukraine had physical control over the weaponry ,operational control via fire codes etc was in the hands of Russia.
Ukraine was given “”assurances” of protection. That word was very carefully chosen so as to fall well short of a treaty guarantee.
The west has used that legal nicety to renege on an obligation,just as Putin used the same legal nicety to justify the crimea invasion as well as the current war,by arguing that the west leaning revolution in Ukraine,created a different govt with whom it had no agreement.
Ukraine was leaned on by the west to agree to the weak memorandum as it tried to gravitate to the west and also received a shedload of American aid.
I doubt if they will make the same mistake again!
In the meanwhile I hope that the west pursues the charges of war crimes against Putin and the Russian high command as I have always believed that when pursuing a large and complex organisation , it is vital to create a very personal downside against the decision makers in that organisation.

As usual senseman gets it right.
BUT the statement “it is regretted that we simply got it wrong “ implies a decision at least honestly taken by the bod.
I am yet to be convinced that the decision was honestly taken.
The boards lack of remorse or candour on the subject supports my doubts.
They have to go!

There is no doubt in my view that Maris and the bod faced a very difficult situation in 2021 with the low oil price and the disastrous second cpr.
Nevertheless the solution presided over by Maris was as a previous poster has said “daylight robbery” and was properly thrown out by the high court.For that debacle the bod has lost all credibility.
Once the bod fails to be re-elected which I hope takes place at the AGM this year,I would suggest the following.
1) A fresh cpr should be commissioned.
2) An independent enquiry should also be commissioned into the actions of the bod to establish if any undeclared conflicts of interest existed between any members of the board and the bond holders and/or advisors.
3) If any such conflicts of interest did exist, then the affected board members and/or advisors should be sued by HUR for a return of the advisory fees incurred by the company for advice that was shown by the court to be entirely inappropriate.Even if no conflicts of interest exist there still may be grounds for such a suit.
4) If any such conflicts did exist then the relevant authorities should be invited to consider whether the affected directors are fit and proper persons to be directors of a public company.
A tough approach granted but I feel that the near extermination of the shareholders warrants it.

Well done Senseman.Your posts have informed intelligent opinion and greatly helped Shareholders beat the great steal of last year.
Those posters who resort to personal abuse do so because they have no substantive arguments to make.
I urge the moderator of this forum to deny a platform to any participant who stoops to personal abuse instead of making a counter argument.

cebo
I am pleased that you feel that a fresh CPR would result somewhere between the first 2 reports.That leaves a lot of room for improvement for HUR's prospects,especially with the current high oil price leading to more economically recoverable reserves.
I also agree that a CPR is produced largely for the benefit of investors and financiers and contains information that the company already has in hand and would shape their forward planning.
My problem, is that, in my opinion the bod is irrevocably tainted by the failed restructuring attempt.
In short I distrust anything and everything that emanates from the current bod.A sad state of affairs to be sure.
The remedy in my mind is for fresh and truly independent information.
If that supports the second CPR then so be it and we will have to rely on the value of the tax credits and continued production at the current oil price to pay off the bond holders to support the currentSP.
If, on the other hand, there is a material improvement then the prospects for HUR are transformed.
Given the history,I believe that the shareholders are entitled to have the bod refresh the data.

Cebo.Ofcourse I am not aware of the details of the data that the bod provided to ERCE.
What I am suggesting is that the financial restructure proposed by the bod and trashed by the high court raises a legitimate question in my mind as to whether that data was accurate or incomplete.
I agree with the second part of your post,but would suggest that a new cpr would provide information helpful to the bod and shareholders in respect of the way forward.The difference between the first and second cpr needs to be resolved

Senseman is as usual right on the button.Following the attempt to hijack the company by the bondholders aided by the BOD is is entirely reasonable to question the data that the BOD provided for the second CPR and to question whether that data was intended to trash the share price and aid the hijack.
Possibly the date provided for first CPR was skewed in other direction as well.
In any event, once the bondholders are out of the picture,the BOD need to concentrate on where to invest the increasing free cash for a further drilling campaign and that will require a third CPR to guide them.