Member Info for senseman

I hope that CA consider emergency application to Mr Justice Zacaroli for a stay on this till Sanction hearing outcome. it is an insult to the Judge and Court process (it's mid process) to kill assets being argued about mid-case and a few days prior to definitive hearing. I have no doubt the timing was deliberate. There is no time pressure. Were application to be made, I believe judge would order a stay, and be peeved at BoD shoddy tactic, and arrogance assuming plan will be okayed

perhaps, transy. but an update can be many things - eg. we have concluded there are insufficient grounds to instigate a formal investigation: or, we are still considering information provided us by the company etc etc.
an update is an update - so can whoever had feedback from FCA before shout up if they read this

Forgot the FCA were already having a ferret around due to peeps writing a while back. Can anyone recall who was communicating with them, so they can press FCA for an update?

Bora
Well done. Thanks for sterling effort. Don't ask, don't get. Most important thing is judge made aware at first hearing peeps referring to various agencies.
Don't know how you are fixed - but perhaps can email representations to judge, including full email or full text - so judge sees not acting because no case to answer, but because FCA is appropriate agency to consider matter
Also, speaking at hearing and reading email out (it's not long) will keep in judge's mind that now SFO have passed file to FCA

From Wendy Simpson, Clerk to Mr Justice Zacaroli (Tel 0207 9476775)

TO VIEW HEARING ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS
email request to attend to:
wendy.simpson@Justice.gov.uk - Subject Ref HURRICANE ENERGY PLC-CR-2021-000852 - HEARING 21 JUNE
you will be sent new link each day (hearing listed 21-23 June, commence 21 June 2pm
do NOT copy link to anyone - contempt of court

TO SPEAK AT HEARING (VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS LINK)
email stating wish to, to:
wendy.simpson@Justice.gov.uk - Subject Ref: HURRICANE ENERGY PLC-CR-2021-000852 - 21 JUNE HEARING
this does NOT oblige you to speak, serves as indicator to Judge (Judge asked for) how many may wish to
If do not write, can still speak, Judge will likely invite towards end of Hearing
NOTE - To view online + request to speak can be dealt with in a SINGLE email to wendy.simpson@Justice.gov.uk

WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST PLAN TO MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI
email to 3 (Three) addresses
wendy.simpson@Justice.gov.uk
ChanceryJudgesListing@Justice.gov.uk
hurricane@dentons.com
Subject Ref: HURRICANE ENERGY PLC-CR-2021-00852 - MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI - REPRESENTATIONS AGAINST 'THE PLAN'
NOTE: Judge will consider all representations already forwarded for 21 May Convening Hearing (1st Hearing). So those who have written before do not need resend. But can write again, or further, if so wish. Anyone not having written, but still wishing to, can do so EVEN AT THIS LATE STAGE - 9JUNE DEADLINE IS NOT STRICT AND WILL NOT APPLY

bartlebob
I received similar. Can you repost every hour or so, remains in peeps eyeline -am sure many will appreciate. And perhaps harden up subject title, eg,...'Hearing 21 June - Email from Court - How to view Hearing + Representations to Judge' or something of that ilk as you consider appropriate? It's likely most important in forum needs next couple of days - others will then likely pick up and repost

You email the court as per my today's 08.45am post, or similar. The email address and SUBJECT are correct

mj
HURR RNSs 19 May & 7June

flynchy
day before is friday. let's you and I diarise to pin it down friday am if poss. for first hearing process was email days before, then judge decided day before hearing if PI's can attend virtually, so all who emailed earlier were emailed login details
the woman who told me that was the way it worked (she was right) was charlotte brice, listings office, direct email 0207 9476176. Currently on voicemail, have left message requesting callback. will post when speak with her. important PIs attend hearing so few can make points to judge at end

flynchy
was that email response to your email?
sent my email days ago - no response and was just awaiting login info day before

MJ - WRONG -you are mixing AGM with EGM. . Winalot is correct - AGM all AGAINST, EGM all FOR

email ChanceryJudgesListing@Justice.gov.uk
'SUBJECT: CASE CR-2021-000852 (HURRICANE ENERGY) - MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI - REQUEST TO ATTEND 21 JUNE HEARING
Dear Mr Justice Zacaroli
Please accept this communication as my request to be allowed to attend the virtual 21-23 June Sanction Hearing of Case CR-2021-000852 (Hurricane Energy).
Yours faithfully
etc'
If things work as the first hearing, one should receive an email link (an 'invitation') with login info the day before the hearing. Towards the end of the hearing the judge will ask if any PI wants to make any verbal representations. The hearing is listed for 2-3 days

scaggy
all this crap the BoD will know about and be relying on to save their skin
phone Hal customer service doing your nut, ask to speak with supervisor or manager,, threaten to move shares elsewhere etc and ask if they will allow u to vote free of charge as goodwill gesture etc.
if hit brick wall, if its decent number of shares, pay the cash, I would
HL don't charge

Hasiba
Keep urging peeps to vote. Ignore the trolls. Slacky's back from surgery to fix his leaky bladder - clearly failed as still same old sh*t coming out. And Mira's record still stuck.

HURR CEO & FO gave vanilla answers - quiet embarassment at times
RB of CA asked difficult, precise questions. Poorly answered. Bodes well for 21-23 June Sanction Hearing
PI's asked precise questions- received vanilla answers
BoD delay issuing results RNS
SP currently 1.21 - market broadly neutral, slightly up from morning - what will happen Monday?
Overall - good for shareholders, by fair margin - 92.34% exceptional

IMPORTANT QUESTION - PLEASE OPINE
Did Kerogen abstain? By my maths, they did. 32.87% shares voted x 92.34% = 30.35% shares in issue voted against Plan
CA (circa 15%) + Ker (circa 16%) = circa 31%. Assuming CA voted circa 15% against, and assuming other circa 15% were PI share votes, this means Ker must have abstained (notwithstanding that CA + Ker would in any event have exceeded 30.35% voted against Plan)
Please discuss - (i) are my figures correct (ii) did Ker abstain? (iii) if abstained, why?

Transy & Mira
Your problem is that no one believes a word either of you write.
Both your mums stop feeding you at the teet because, instead of drinking the milk and being grateful, you both tried to bite the beauteous thing off
Have a nice day in your cesspools
Kisses x

HURR CEO & FO gave vanilla answers - quiet embarassment at times
RB of CA asked difficult, precise questions. Poorly answered. Bodes well for 21-23 June Sanction Hearing
PI's asked precise questions- received vanilla answers
BoD delaying issuing results RNS
SP currently 1.24 - market broadly neutral, slightly up from morning
Post Meeting - RNTranslator & Mirasol today's canaries further disgracing themselves
Overall - good for shareholders, by fair margin

Transy
Wrong. The correct answer is that there is no industry accepted standard for calculating future oil prices - because of the very nature of the problem there cannot be. It is always a consensual and broad matrix. What it is NOT - is the one HURR uses ie futures prices - that will ALWAYS, over any historical period, be $5-$10 less than ACTUAL oil prices.
Have a nice day. Kisses x

Transy and Mira
Tell you what - you tell the forum what IS the recognised industry standard - come on - don't be shy - put up or shut up!

Mira - I dont need to - its enough that the one HURR uses is wrong. Am sure CA will have expert testimony on what it should be.
That's your and Transy's disease - your arguments are always DESTRUCTIVE, never CONSTRUCTIVE. It doesn't matter how many times posters hold out an olive branch to you, or seek to engage intelligently - within 5 mins you are back with the gutter bullying tactics.
Have a nice day the pair of you. Kisses x