Member Info for tvhold

I have to agree with delta - the FCA need to be convinced that the historical crap is resolved and I can see three court cases involving ppp still live on case board suggesting it’s not.

Then they have to have confidence it is a trading company not a shell. Texas is still impaired, Ukraine looks a while away and so what is the operational activity that the FCA can say is valid.

I’d throw any old assets in now just to tick the box for the FCA else - hi ho hi ho a delisting we will go

Yes there is too much noise here and hopefully when it retrades then those who wish to exit can do so.

No point staying in a stock if you just want to vote no unless you have a viable alternative plan to propose.

Lets hope PPP get retraded soon and these activists leave

The no votes still achieved 17m - taking out JW this was 11m - almost half of the position of that in Dec and it looks like they went across to Yes.

Thats a pretty positive result and supports the case for retrading. If 47m votes supported the BOD then it’s difficult for the FCA to argue.

It would have been very interesting to see a “directional resolution” along the lines of - “ the board to take all actions necessary to apply to the FCA for re-trading immediately”. Then actually see if the 17m no voters also oppose that - then we would pretty much know they are saboteurs as would the FCA.

Perhaps if we remain non trading we could put this at the next GM.

Genuine interest here

What is the thought process of voting no ?

There must be some reasons that make sense - could be economic, principal or simply attrition but I’d like to know if you take the positive decision and physical steps to vote, and then vote no, it’s a clear deliberate act and there must be a strong logic assuming it’s not just a protest (which is valid enough)

Grateful for thoughts

SHMG

Why are they inconsistent ?

I don’t know him or how he intends to vote

I expect hin To vote no given he has been royally screwed around and seems to have been brought to the deal by Evan’s and so his affiliations might lie there

Perhaps English isn’t your native language ?

Hi - no I don’t know JW or any view on the way he will vote.

My comments are that if they can’t get a special resolution through (even without JW it’s hard and failed last time) then they have two options

- keep holding an AGM every 14 days (this is a resolution)

- issue a circular to offer shares to existing shareholders (no idea on terms as the shares to the contributed shareholders are at zero / maybe it will be the price they sold at ??)

I think it’s unusual territory so no real guidance - Claude is stuck !!

Sharebel

Might not be economically rational but it’s a possibility.

As to the maths. A special resolution requires 75%

It means if JW votes no (noting he didn’t vote last time) then there would need to be an additional 18m votes (on top of what was already voted last time). That seems pretty unlikely

So I’d expect JW to vote no and then the company having to issue a circular or an offer as the preemption rights have not been disabled. Annoying but not terminal and actually a pretty interesting way to raise funds anyway

Personally the only issue is retrading.

Price, dilution, strategy, board, CLN, court cases, evans, audit etc are irrelevant

The only thing that matters is we either retrade or we delist. The FCA interest isn’t going to allow ongoing suspension. We are cleared for takeoff on the accounts and solvency so it has to be FCA historic issues that are challenging. Cant be to comfortable for audit either given the promised softening of the disclaimers didn’t look any different.

The new board, new brokers, restoking of Texas ashes, issue of JW shares, new funding, all point to deeper engagement to appease the FCA.

We will still need to reissue the historic shares and this requires special resolution and likely a prospectus (which was required prior to rule changes but I expect FCA will still want one)

So sadly can’t see this retrading for several weeks and only then if the special resolution at the next AGM pass. It’s in JW hands as he has 6m shares which if he votes no mean it’s almost certain the special resolution can’t pass.

Talked myself into a dark place I’m afraid

Sohelpme

Would you actually vote him off ?? He’s lent funds to ppp and without him it would be shut down.

Irrespective - it’s simply a sensible and prudent move. If all the directors that are up for election get voted off (which is possible) then there would be no directors left - asi can probably tell you that the company cannot then function and will close.

Having a residual director that is not up for election until the next AGM allows the company to operate and he can appoint new directors. Including reappointing those just voted off.

Why take any risk that through bad planning that the company can be extinguished and your funds lost ?

You can vote for him at the AGM following this one when he is eligible for reelection

Dsaf

“Genuine question I will be asking at the AGM in person, will petroquest be funding alongside PPP for their share of the profits”

I read the RNS as neither Petroquest nor PPP will be funding these costs. They are being funded by a secured loan note from RMD. This is not PPP putting in any new money.

Once this loan is paid back with associated interest and fees then both PPP and Petroquest will participate in profits (if available).

Well done affrm - when everyone else was negative you stuck with your views.

Is it possible we can keep 100% of Texas ?? At the moment 50% is given away - pls can we do a different deal so we can keep all of the upside and write back our impairment over time - will boost the sp before we add Ukraine, Canada etc

The reason gasbag won’t ask him is that he won’t be on the call. He’s not a shareholder and just comes in here to spread toms gospel.

Gasman must have another agenda - it’s too personal against Lunn and Spinks for too long - something else going on here that we aren’t aware of - what is it gasman ??

Gasman

How much has Lunn paid himself ?? From where

Affrm - this £600k you refer to has already been raised and spent in August 2024.

Money all gone by the end of that year as Lunn tried to raise more in Dec/January 2025 and failed. There is no new funds committed and there will need to be more injection from RMD or a capital raise. No chance on a raise until PPP is back to trading and dealt with legacy issues created by Evans, Lunn etc. At least Board change evidence the break with the past.

Affrm

I ask again please tell me where this is referred to - you clearly believe it so how come ??

"Also £600,000 coming from them two raises on resuming trading so we will have a lot of cash adding to the cash already so balance sheet looks far healthier than it did in 2024."

Affrm

“ Also £600,000 on resuming trading should be legally binding and in the coffers from day one so that's £600k to spend on operational and operatives”

Where does this come From ?? .

Personally I’m disappointed with Richard and the board . It’s three months since last meeting and he’s done nothing in terms of relisting actions - no accounts, no issue of shares nor plans / just firing robert Menzel and a bunch of feeble excuses as to why they can’t issue anything on Texas or accounts etc.

The only light is the appointment of oak tree.

I’m amazed the FCA haven’t just delisted the stock yet but it has to be the biggest risk facing us as shareholders. Then the de rampers, suddenly emerged new posters and historic TG agitators will have got what they want by default essentially by the unexplained laziness of the management of ppp.

Wake up ppp and get on with something

I didn’t expect that at this time - just assumed he wouldn’t stand at next AGM.

Can only be a good thing with another visible break from history (he was probably badly conflicted with global vision anyway) and this will reinforce new direction, new directors and new start.

Zag - yes I get that however

- we have impaired a lot of value which can be written back over time if we retain some interest

- if we close it down or sell it etc then ppp is essentially a shell and valued as such

- it may be quicker to raise modest funds to restore this than a fund raise for new acquisitions

It’s not the full story but an initial step to ultimately refocusing on better opportunities

May be academic depending on what they have discovered or determined to do

Let’s see - ps I’m also happy if they have a material alternative that is deliverable today and capable of attracting funding ?