Anglo African Oil & Gas Share Discussion Threads

[seagreen] 16/12/2019 13:29

Slick if she continues to manage a total clean up and you believe AAOG can raise some funds it may be worth a small investment as on reflection the "reasons" for people falling on their sword to date sometimes may be just for them to save face and a polite way of Sarah doing an Alan Sugar I am tempted....

Although how they raise funds (although there is that debt MOU) and at what price is anyone's guess so be prepared to lose all ...

On the positive the Government would presumably look favourably as they must now realise the lack of honesty of the former incumbents who no doubt were trying to squeeze and bully SNPC due to their lack of funds on the licence.

It must also be some embarrassment that the project has been ruined to date and I know the well was regarded as the worst drilled in the area and they also need all the inward investment possible as the country is in financial difficult

Which brings up the other key point the licence extension where SNPC were refusing to give them the same terms (not unusual by the way).

If there is anyway the regulatory authorities and Nomad's agree to the return to the original founders (who left prior to ATOG debacle and had nothing to do with it)and Oleg has experience in the area of drilling then who knows the Government may be more generous on the licence extension and give them the same terms or not as bad as the Government want the oil and ensuing revenue for the people of Congo as much as the shareholders.

Logically if they were prepared to come back it is probably the best/only solution to turn this sinking ship around and repair it and get a new set of auditors and advisors etc in to give the market and the Congo confidence again.

Interesting times but it would be a long shot punt and I offer no recommendation other than the odds look attractive but 100/1 shots often fall so normal people put smaller stakes on and are prepared to lose the lot!

[tomboyb] 16/12/2019 11:22

Thanks for those posts seagreen -

Blind punt for me from last week and earlier today -

[seagreen] 16/12/2019 10:54

Ianio...sorry for you it is a shocking state of affairs...the board used to be policed better and people trusted posters or knew who were the real villains on ADVFN.

It is utter nonsense to make Calne interim CEO as he was the CFO on watch when these "illegal" payments were made on the "DD" over the Tunisian asset and either approved them or there has been fraud committed by the previous Chairman and/or CEO or he was lied too by the aforementioned. He is also or was the CFO of Sefton's other AIM company and a private vehicle.

There has been a whisper that funds have gone missing or are unexplained in the overseas subsidiary for a while and the auditors in England were or are investigating. This may be untrue or if true connected unless there is more to come out.

There is a lot of activity on Companies house for ATOG including Sefton's recent resignation as a Director it is now Berwick who is running the show it appears.

It simply does not wash or sit easily with me that AAOG have behaved in a corporately responsible manner over their involvement and DD with the asset in Tunisia that became ATOG. The initial funds were used to do DD were those of AAOG's. Whilst I can see the logic (if true) that AAOG could not subsequently raise the funds (if true why did they ever waste the company money in the first place if that was the case) and could not ultimately afford the purchase price of the asset (or if true the other shareholders were against it) they clearly tried to keep the subsequent transaction under the table and hide it from the proper authorities.

If it was carried out at arms length in a proper manner then there would have been no need for such subversive activities and there needs to be a proper investigation and a forensic audit of this company and its subsidiaries.

The Directors in question as argued here in depth previously are potentially guilty of a conflict of interest which can lead to criminal proceedings.

In common law you can not commit an act of crime be it theft or simple fraud and then become innocent by making a repayment of "misappropriated or misused funds".

The 3 main board Directors are prime facie complicit in these actions and should be investigated and potentially prosecuted if found guilty.

By definition the Non Executive Directors at the same time (one has many connections with Sefton) must look themselves in the mirror and decide whether they had the rug pulled over their eyes or in fact they were or should have been aware of such activities and whether they acted correctly according to their fiduciary responsibilities.

I personally have respect for Sarah and she has been handed a poison chalice and is doing her level best to fire fight and bring the situation under control and is no doubt acting with the appropriate authorities as she was a qualified executive in her previous role. (She was well regarded and is why I suspect Fincap may have brought her in). I suspect the other one along term acquaintance of Mr Sefton and previous Non executive of his companies is probably deeply embarrassed as well.

However, both should have been able to rely on the auditors who have prime facie let the shareholders down and probably have also been lied to. In fact it looks like everyone has been lied to.

The audacity of Mr Sefton, Berwick and Calne in the 21st century is quite remarkable and one could argue that any "repayments" of costs incurred by AAOG are in fact being repaid by redundancy payments that AAOG have paid Mr Sefton (£200k circa) and no doubt will be paid to Mr Berwick (£200k circa).

These individuals are prime facie guilty of breaking the companies act of 2006 section 175 through 177 or at the very least need investigating and how Mr Sefton had the balls to accept his redundancy/resignation payment beggars belief.

I trust Mr Berwick has marginally higher scruples

If/When as he surely must the CFO (acting CEO sick) resigns from his untenable position if he accepts anything then all accountants might as well resign from the Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Any such amounts paid shareholders should demand repayment of and the bonus payments of last year be repaid.

LAst year's accounts need to be restated as well as previously stated.

For ease of reference to avoid any doubt here are the appropriate sections from the companies act 2006 that were referred to earlier in the year


175 Duty to avoid conflicts of interest

(1)A director of a company must avoid a situation in which he has, or can have, a direct or indirect interest that conflicts, or possibly may conflict, with the interests of the company.
(2)This applies in particular to the exploitation of any property, information or opportunity (and it is immaterial whether the company could take advantage of the property, information or opportunity).
(3)This duty does not apply to a conflict of interest arising in relation to a transaction or arrangement with the company.
(4)This duty is not infringed—
(a)if the situation cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest; or
(b)if the matter has been authorised by the directors.
(5)Authorisation may be given by the directors—
(a)where the company is a private company and nothing in the company's constitution invalidates such authorisation, by the matter being proposed to and authorised by the directors; or
(b)where the company is a public company and its constitution includes provision enabling the directors to authorise the matter, by the matter being proposed to and authorised by them in accordance with the constitution.
(6)The authorisation is effective only if—
(a)any requirement as to the quorum at the meeting at which the matter is considered is met without counting the director in question or any other interested director, and
(b)the matter was agreed to without their voting or would have been agreed to if their votes had not been counted.
(7)Any reference in this section to a conflict of interest includes a conflict of interest and duty and a conflict of duties.

176 Duty not to accept benefits from third parties
(1)A director of a company must not accept a benefit from a third party conferred by reason of—
(a)his being a director, or
(b)his doing (or not doing) anything as director.
(2)A “third party” means a person other than the company, an associated body corporate or a person acting on behalf of the company or an associated body corporate.
(3)Benefits received by a director from a person by whom his services (as a director or otherwise) are provided to the company are not regarded as conferred by a third party.
(4)This duty is not infringed if the acceptance of the benefit cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest.
(5)Any reference in this section to a conflict of interest includes a conflict of interest and duty and a conflict of duties.

177 Duty to declare interest in proposed transaction or arrangement
(1)If a director of a company is in any way, directly or indirectly, interested in a proposed transaction or arrangement with the company, he must declare the nature and extent of that interest to the other directors.
(2)The declaration may (but need not) be made—
(a)at a meeting of the directors, or
(b)by notice to the directors in accordance with—
(i)section 184 (notice in writing), or
(ii)section 185 (general notice).
(3)If a declaration of interest under this section proves to be, or becomes, inaccurate or incomplete, a further declaration must be made.
(4)Any declaration required by this section must be made before the company enters into the transaction or arrangement.
(5)This section does not require a declaration of an interest of which the director is not aware or where the director is not aware of the transaction or arrangement in question.
For this purpose a director is treated as being aware of matters of which he ought reasonably to be aware.
(6)A director need not declare an interest—
(a)if it cannot reasonably be regarded as likely to give rise to a conflict of interest;
(b)if, or to the extent that, the other directors are already aware of it (and for this purpose the other directors are treated as aware of anything of which they ought reasonably to be aware); or
(c)if, or to the extent that, it concerns terms of his service contract that have been or are to be considered—
(i)by a meeting of the directors, or
(ii)by a committee of the directors appointed for the purpose under the company's constitution.

[ambrose65] 16/12/2019 10:38

What we need is to bring back the original guys who set up the company. Alexander and Olge. They knew what to do and Sefton got rid of them to set up his money making schemes ! He hired his buddy Berwick, just sacked from Impact and Ophir ! Despite having a fantastic network in Africa, a superb negotiator (was this Sefton’s words ?) he never got the license renewed after 2y of cashing his huge salary ! This company needs a seismic change and to put the PI back in the mind of the management. How could such a scam ran by Sefton & Berwick last so long ! Should be criminal investigation ! Everyone laughed at Seagreen ! Well, he was right all along ! Did not expect that one ! Hope Sarah Cope got the guts to call for action !

[deltalo] 16/12/2019 09:26

Well we wanted them out and we've got what we wanted, Time to move the company forward now.

[tomboyb] 16/12/2019 09:09

well -

Looks like a medium term hold here for me -

Avg 0.71p and STOP at 0.50p -

[phurley] 16/12/2019 08:40

This is disgusting. Surely something that can be done.

[ianio5691] 16/12/2019 08:36

What a complete and utter con this has been.

Fair play and apologies to Seagreen who called them out on this from months ago.

At the time I did not want to believe what he was claiming, as it seemed so incredible that Sefton and Berwick would pull such a blatant con.

It would appear that they have, and they have got away with it.

So where now for AAOG?
Can we believe a word that Sefton and Berwick have said?
Was the oil ever there?
With no CPR, we have no confirmation as to what is down there
Clearly the licence is still the biggest issue, but we have no idea as to what the relationship with the Govt is.
If they have stopped payments through SNPC, it would appear it is not too good. How then to negotiate Licence renewal?

Funding is now the other major issue. With outstanding payments from SNPC - what are the chances of these being forthcoming?
We also have the on-going issue of the extremely complicated ISA. Shares from this ridiculous arrangement will now be flooding the market, with little or no financial benefit to AAOG.

So where now. Not worth selling the few I have left. I would rather wait and see if some miraculous rabbit is pulled from the hat.

Surely there must be a strong case for the FSA to investigate the behaviour of Sefton and Berwick?

So much for Berwick being an honourable ex-military man.....

Outrageous that this can go on.

[dodge_city] 15/12/2019 21:25

AAOG shareholder having a great weekend.

[tomboyb] 13/12/2019 14:22

Oh to be a shorter -

[tomboyb] 13/12/2019 13:28

only 13.85% left to sell -

[supercity] 13/12/2019 13:24

Looks like Miton Group are selling out, managed to shift a few yesterday according to the rns.

[tomboyb] 13/12/2019 11:43

The old Sefton -

[officerdigby] 13/12/2019 11:37

Come along way since Sefton stood up and said no intention of dilution at 10p!...I mean obviously a long way down in share price terms nothing actually happened on the ground AT ALL right?!

[letmepass] 12/12/2019 20:40

Fundraise coming no doubt.

[red rook] 12/12/2019 20:19

... maybe Fat Boy Sefton will put in a low ball offer ..:-)