Member Info for ronwoking

Hi machin
I believe that there is difference in this respect.
ISA shareholders who have instructed their isa manager how to vote have in effect given their manager a proxy .
The institutional shareholders such as CA and Kerogen are not nominee shareholders but fund managers and have not (as far as I am aware) polled their own fund shareholders as to receiving instructions from them as to how to vote.
In other words they do not hold individual instructions from their shareholders and their proxy.
I do not see how they could do so.If i were a shareholder in Crystal Amber ,how many HUR shares could I claim to have, to exercise a vote
The nominee shareholders in contrast know exactly which of their customers own HUR and exactly how many HUR shares each of them own and exactly what their voting intentions are,(If they received instructions)
The institutional shareholders therefore only have 1 vote each. The nominee shareholders should make it clear to the court that they hold the proxies of xxx number of beneficial owners and what they voting intentions are.

It remains a major and critical uncertainty as to how votes by nominee shareholders will be recorded in the court meeting.
Barclays told me that their beneficial shareholders would be identified,but I remain unconvinced.
I urge you and others to email the court , as I have, to point out that counting the nominee shareholder as one vote is a gross misrepresentaion of the wishes of the beneficial owners who have provided voting instructions to their nominees and have therefore given them their proxy.
Counting the nominee as one vote clearly subverts the intent of the court voting process.

I have just sent the following email to the chancery court in respect of the hurricane court hearing.
TO chanceryjudgeslisting@justice.gov.uk
RE: Case number CR -2023-001420
"Please be advised of the following .
Many shareholders of Hurricane Energy PLC hold their shares in ISA accounts whereby the ISA manager is the registered shareholder and holds shares as nominee for many beneficiial owners ( possible hundreds of shareholders)

The beneficial owners will have provided instructions to their nominees to vote their shares either for or against the scheme of arrangement which is the subject of the court meeting.
Accordingly the ISA manager will be acting as proxy for the beneficial owners of the shares.

I am concerned that in the recording of such votes in the court hearing the ISA manager,( as registered shareholder) may be regarded as a single voter rather than as a proxy for the possibly large number of voters for whom they act as nominees.

As the number of voters is a critical consideration in the court meeting this would in my opinion be a gross misrepresentation of the wishes of the beneficial owners of shares .( both those FOR and AGAINST) the proposed scheme.

I request that in polling the votes, the court order the nominee shareholders to disclose the number of shareholders for whom they are acting both for and against the proposal.
Having that information will ensure that the wishes of ALL shareholders are fairly represented at the meeting."

I strongly suggest that other indiviual shareholders also send such an email to the court so that it is ware of the strength of feeling in this matter.

Just got another call from Morrow.They are clearly still burning the phone lines to canvas investors.
I left them in no doubt as to my no vote.i deliberately used somewhat intemperate language which I hope gets back to the BOD.

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