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 mornings RNS tells you that the feed back from Morrow is toxic on the deal and that Prax are worried enough to want to scare the PI's with a no increase statement.
Good point that HUR has not been able to rustle up anymore supportive institutional investors.If they had, they would be trumpeting the fact.
Still I feel that the odds are stacked against a no vote and Prax will be saddled with a huge rump of very angry minority shareholders
I see that another shareholder has received a phone call from HUR's communication agent.
I am curious as to how they got my contact details as all my holdings are with ISA managers. (6 of them) and HUR should only have details of the ISA manager as a nominee shareholder.
Does anyone know if the nominee shareholders reveal the details of their beneficial owner shareholders.
I just received a most unusual phone call from a 3rd party canvassing company working for hurricane energy seeking to talk to me about the take over and explain its terms and give me details of hurricanes investor services help line.
I gave the caller both barrels with respect to the problems with the take over bid and the mistrust that I felt concerning the actions current and past of the BOD.
It seems to me that Hurricane must be getting somewhat nervous about the outcome of the vote and the rump of unhappy shareholders to engage the services of a company to schmooze with shareholders.
I wonder how many other shareholders have received a call
I have just asked barclays to clarify how their votes as an ISA manager are registered at the meeting.
Their reply is that they vote as the number of shareholders and the number of shares.
EG 200 sharehoklders holding 200,000 shares are voted as 200 shareholders and 200,000 shares
sent email today.
Voted no to all resolutions re 900,000 shares
Just received postal proxies from Lloyd’s re both meetings.
Nothing from Barclays yet
Hur have just opened an online proxy voting service via www.investorcentre.co.Uk/eproxy
Voting re the court hearing is now available on the interactive investor platform for shareholders using II
neither lloyds stockbrokers or barclays stockbrokers show any corporate actions for HUR.
The HUR website does not provide any online voting capability that i can find.
One of the EGM special resolutions is to authorise the board carry the scheme into effect.
In my view if the court vote which is taken first goes against the scheme then that is the end of the matter.....for now
If the court vote is passed then the EGM vote carries the matter forward if it is also passed.
Thanks oldman .Found the 2 proxies.
The court proxy is to either accept or decline the take over scheme.
The task now is to get the isa managers to vote on both proxies.
Re the proxies.In January when the meeting was held to authorise the share premium account change, the company issued online proxy voting arrangements about a month before the meeting.
So far nothing has come out about online voting proxies for the May 4 meeting.
senseman
I have not been able to access the court proxy.
From the HUR RNS there are 2 proxy forms a blue one for the court hearing and a yellow one for the EGM.
As II has not recognised the court meeting yet I do not know what the vote is about.
The HUR site does not show the proxies
Just noticed that there are 2 seperate proxies to be voted.
1) The EGM
2) The court hearing
Both meetings on May 4 and both proxy deadlines are May2
Interactive investor only logged the EGM for voting which I have done but they did not note the court vote.I phoned them today and hopefully the court voting option will come up in a few days on their site.
FYI neither lloyds or barclays isa managers have yet to show ANY corporate action for HUR
I hold 900000 shares all of which are held in ISA's.
I am very doubtful that the DCUs will be able to be held in the ISAs and accordingly any revenue received from the DCUs will be taxable..
I intend to vote against the Prax offer,but not because of the ISA tax status.
I am not comfortable that the accounting methods that will be applied to calculate the DCUs returns can be relied upon.
But more importantly ....at least for me is that the senior executives of HUR are going to be handsomely rewarded.
I will not forget their attempt to deprive me of 95% of my shareholding in what in my opinion were the most dubious and secret circumstances and costing the company $17mm in "advice"
The board should have been thrown out after the high court debacle and I am most disappointed that Crystal Amber did not
follow through on the process.
Now it seems that they are to be handsomely rewarded for agreeing to a "jam tomorrow" offer from Prax that lines their pockets.
The standards of governance in this company and by extension in AIM are woeful .
I urge all PIs to vote no.
The deal that crs and kerogen have is the same as that offered to all shareholders UNLESS they have already reached some form of arrangement to dispose of their conditional units at an attractive price to them.I cannot see why they would tie themselves up to reject a higher bid unless they had an agreed takeout already in hand.
As other posters have noted hur have some explanation to give as to why kerogen had advance details of the scheme allowing them to sign their undertaking of support.
In my opinion .
I can only think of 2 reasons why CRS is supporting the hur acquisition scheme.
1) the are confident given the new CPR reserve estimates that the return on the DFU’s will deliver a good profit for them.
2) OR they have already negotiated a future sales agreement for their DFUs with a third party to deliver a good profit for them.
Just my personal opinion ofcourse.
FYI the volume of opinion on the lse chat site for hur is overwhelmingly hostile to the scheme.
Add my 900,000 shares to the no list
Bloobird.... CA and kerogen have formally pledged their support to the scheme.Their support dox can be down loaded
The big question is why crystal amber would support the prax scheme.Clearly they would only do this if they felt confident that the DFU's would deliver a return acceptable to them.
IMO there can only be 2 possible routes.
1) They are totally confident that the scheme will ultimately deliver 12.5p per share.That explanation, given that crystal amber are obliged to wind up their fund earlier than the scheme would deliver the 12.5 p is questionable.
2) They have established another way of receiving an acceptable return (to them) from the DFU's,namely by selling them and have already reached an understanding to do this.
As agreed by most posters,this is a terrible deal. The acquirer is trying to buy HUR with our own money and has added a "jam tomorow" incentive that they could wriggle out of in a flash.
I shall vote my shares against this disgrace and urge all other PIs to do the same.
With the new CPR report we will be just as well rewarded by running HUR to the end of its economic life and by paying the max allowed dividends and with more certainty.
The downsides of the proposal are many and include
the handsome incentives to the directors to go along with the scheme
the delisting of the shares leaving the PIs with illiquid DFUs that could be used by the buyers to acquire the DFUs held by the major institutional shareholders without extending the same offer to the PIs.That MAY explain the willingness of CA and Kerogen in supporting the scheme.
To pass the court and various resolutions the scheme needs 75% shareholder support.They already have nearly 50% from CA and Kerogen.75% is a tough hurdle but given normal shareholder apathy might be achievable.
lets hope not.
The board have once again tried to put lipstick on a pig to persuade us that this is a good deal.It is NOT.
lets hope that either we can defeat them or that a better offer is received.
Simple you seem to be incapable of posting a message without adding some personal poison.
I have filtered you out as the personal aspect detracts from the occasional informed and useful commentary that you have provided.
I would suggest that all viewers of this board do the same.
I add my thanks to the others who have expressed appreciation to Sensemans contributions.
Also as a long term antagonist against freehold investors,I trust that senseman has made the effort to band together with other affected leaseholders in his situation to ensure that the freeholders actions are legal and properly conducted.
I believe that a dividend can only be made from distributable reserves.
I do not think that Hur has such reserves due to accumulated losses over many years.
Accordingly hur will need to create distributable reserves,most likely by a reduction in capital via a transfer from its share premium account.
That will permit the dividend.
I see no Reference to a share buyback.
If that were contemplated and shares were bought and cancelled it might take crystal ambers shareholding to 30% or higher and the complications that would follow.