Gulf Keystone Petroleum Share Discussion Threads

[nestoframpers] 18/11/2016 20:29

20:23 vertigo

Re: Complete Rip Off

PJ Saxon. 'What in God's name have the leaches on the board done to deserve such riches?'

----

Damn all, and the figures being bandied about on what they might potentially walk away with from this shipwreck are truly mind-boggling. Up to $42,000,000 as a reward for underselling an asset the CEO believes to be 'world class'. Ferrier is in the job for one and a half years yet stands to pocket $18,000,000 at the same time that private investors lose their futures to the kind of obscene greed that rewards failure.

It's reminiscent of the banking implosion of 2008 when the culprits who oversaw the crash slithered into the undergrowth witn oversized payoffs and inflated pensions. The banking regulator in Dublin, (home to GKP's next AGM) a man called Patrick Neary, told TV audiences on the eve of the collapse of Anglo Irish Bank that all the banks were 'well funded'. He retired shortly after on a pension of almost €450,000, having failed miserably to do his job.

Failure is regularly rewarded in the interests of keeping mouths shut to protect more powerful interests.

So now we have the Board of a FTSE listed Company in line to become rich beyond the dreams of 99% of people because they too have failed to do their jobs. And in case it's forgotten in the heat of the moment, their jobs were to exercise due fiscal diligence on behalf of the Company's shareholders.

It's disgusting, immoral, obscene, reprehensible and unforgivable that anybody should be enriched out of the maelstrom of misery that investing in this wreck has left in its wake.

If Ferrier has one solitary iota of integrity as a man he should revoke this clause, because it is not just a damning indictment of the Board's sense of what is right and wrong, it will also serve as a measure of his own ethical standards for years to come.

[lardner23] 18/11/2016 19:26

The topulentia post, Olieslim? You mean the Varzi reference? He (Varzi, not op) goes back a long way with Perella, fwiw.

[doshdabbler] 18/11/2016 19:25

Of course it won't rise much thereafter which is where it differs markedly from LMI

[doshdabbler] 18/11/2016 19:20

Post consolidation will see the inevitable 20%+ drop. Happens every time. Lonmin is a perfect example.

[lardner23] 18/11/2016 19:04

Sleeves, crooks, troughers, weeds, go with the flow/can't fight the Ashti system, naïve/over-confident in their abilities at the start...it'll all come out in time, no doubt.

The fact that O63 says he has some damning stuff, and I think it's therefore inevitable that JF & co are aware, demonstrates to me which way their moral compasses have been pointing.

OK, we all know oil's a dirty business, but I think JF's initial charm offensive re PR, lunches, TV etc looks a bit calculated in hindsight. Especially when he must have known Sami had by then lashed the wheel.

[notout] 18/11/2016 18:47

BT
It beggars belief the whole thing
So they either have something monumental up their sleeve
Or they crooks

[biggerthus] 18/11/2016 18:44

lard, I was wondering why, if Trafigura/Vitol etc were willing to lend the KRG $2bn, and Glencore think it worthwhile trying to attract $550m of investment (that figure rings a bell!), our own BOD were unable to find an alternative refinancing deal against our nascent 40k bopd production ?

As you say, GKP could have taken on one of their execs at the same rate as NadZ, giving us some *real* leverage with the KRG.

Perhaps that idea didn't occur to our fearless leaders? but 12% coupon on $550m with a 3 year holiday before repayment sounds rather good to me.

[lardner23] 18/11/2016 18:27

It would be nice if it was a closed system, olieslim. By that I mean, the KRG borrowing via forward deals with Vitol et al and the money going to paying off what they owe the IOCs. But that's not how it's working and, yes, it's too opaque. Are the KRG still 20bn in hock, as has been previously estimated? I wouldn't mind betting some of the oil production revenue goes straight out in interest to other lenders, Wonga-style.


I was going to suggest that if GKP are happy to pay out mega-bucks to the ineffective MP, why not replace him with someone from one of the oil traders who might be able to manipulate this money merry-go-round in the IOCs' favour. But then Hayward sprang to mind. If he can't get the Glencore guys to make it work for Genel, then the idea's got no legs.

[notout] 18/11/2016 17:45

PreviousGo ToTop Posts


Phillis18 Nov '16 - 16:59 - 527412 of 527414 3 0 (Filtered)

hearts118 Nov '16 - 17:23 - 527413 of 527414 1 0 (Filtered)

Bigdog518 Nov '16 - 17:23 - 527414 of 527414 0 0 (Filtered)

Chaps go out have a beer😯㈷9;😯
See you all in Dublin????
giraffe

👄👄👄👄8068;

[bigdog5] 18/11/2016 17:23

stu, can you see where the producing charities barrels went?

[hearts1] 18/11/2016 17:23

It's strange how many avatars disappear when Bobs out of office.

[phillis] 18/11/2016 16:59

am I right in thinking we have gone a working week without a post from either Mitty or John the blog idiot?

[shaftdrive1] 18/11/2016 16:14

sash,the CC....'the good ol' days'when 80% of holders thought,'that's it,now we can leave £2 behind!'....by eck,they certainly did...robin hood and his merry (kurdy) men!

[tess_tickle] 18/11/2016 16:04

Funders on hook for indemnity costs in Excalibur

By Rachel Rothwell18 November 2016

Litigation funders will be liable for indemnity costs where these are awarded against their funded client, even if the funder itself has been guilty of ‘no discreditable conduct’, the Court of Appeal ruled today in Excalibur Ventures v Texas Keystone and others [2016] EWCA Civ 1144.

The court also dismissed funders’ arguments that their liability should be reduced because the amounts that were provided as security for costs – as opposed to the ongoing funding of the case – should not count towards the Arkin cap.

The Arkin principle limits a funder’s liability at a level equivalent to the amount it put into the litigation.

In December 2013, Excalibur Ventures, represented by Clifford Chance, suffered a crushing defeat in its $1.6bn claim against Texas Keystone over interests in four large oilfields in Iraqi Kurdistan. Ordering indemnity costs against Excalibur, the trial judge described the litigation – which failed on every point – as ‘speculative and opportunistic’.

The litigation was financed by five funders to the tune of £31.75m, including £17.5m provided as security for costs.

In today’s judgment, Lord Justice Tomlinson said: ‘The argument for the funders boiled down to the proposition that it is not appropriate to direct them to pay costs on the indemnity basis if they have themselves been guilty of no discreditable conduct or conduct which can be criticised.

‘Even on the assumption that the funders were guilty of no conduct which can properly be criticised, and I accept that they did nothing discreditable in the sense of being morally reprehensible or even improper, this argument suffers from two fatal defects… .

‘First, it overlooks that the conduct of the parties is but one factor to be taken into account in the overall evaluation. Second, it looks at the question from only one point of view, that of the funder…. It ignores the character of the action which the funder has funded and its effect on the defendants.’

He added: ‘A litigant may find himself liable to pay indemnity costs on account of the conduct of those whom he has chosen to engage – e.g. lawyers, or experts [who] may themselves have been chosen by the lawyers, or witnesses… The position of the funder is directly analogous.’

Tomlinson LJ said it would ‘seldom’ be necessary for a judge to consider whether the funder knew or ought to have known the ‘egregious’ features of the case that gave rise to indemnity costs.

‘By funding, the funder takes a risk, a risk as to the nature of which he has the opportunity to inform himself both before offering funding and during the course of the litigation which he funds,’ he added.

Addressing the issue of the extent to which funders were permitted to involve themselves in the litigation they fund without falling foul of the doctrine of champerty and maintenance, the judge said: ‘Litigation funding is an accepted and judicially sanctioned activity perceived to be in the public interest.

‘What the [trial] judge characterised as “rigorous analysis of law, facts and witnesses, consideration of proportionality and review at appropriate intervals” is what is to be expected of a responsible funder… and cannot of itself be champertous.’

On the issue of security for costs, Tomlinson LJ said: ‘One question which arises in this appeal is whether funds made available solely for the purpose of enabling a litigant to put up security for costs counts towards the Arkin cap, ie. whether such a funder risks losing the amount advanced plus the same amount again, as in the ordinary case of a funder who advances funds to defray the litigant’s own costs.’

He concluded that he agreed with the trial judge’s assessment that ‘money provided to Excalibur [for] security for costs was an investment in the claim just as much as money provided to pay Excalibur’s own costs and should count equally towards the Arkin cap’.

The Association of Litigation Funders, which provided evidence to the court, said it welcomed the Court of Appeal’s ‘reaffirmation’ of third-party funding as a judicially sanctioned activity. It noted that the court had drawn a distinction between professional funders, and those who are inexperienced, and had not adopted the professional approach expected of ALF members in assessing the merits of the case.

Susan Dunn, head of litigation funding at Harbour, added: ‘Specifically to Excalibur we mustn’t forget that, although the judge upholds the High Court’s decision, he reiterates that awarding costs on an indemnity scale is a departure from the norm.

‘In this particular case, he agreed that the character of the claim, the size and effect justified this specific outcome.

‘It highlights not only the importance of the due diligence process before the decision to fund, but also that it is taken by experienced people who are well versed with the risks of third-party funding and very knowledgeable about the litigation process.’

She added: ‘In our view, the decision also offered peace of mind related to some of the concerns the ALF had made with relation to champerty.

[notout] 18/11/2016 15:44

Gkp still owed was it £5-6 m????

Pay for our mp for a year or two

Huge buy
👄👄👄👄8077;

[888icb] 18/11/2016 15:29

Court of Appeal ruling in the case Excaliber v Texas Keystone that Litigation funders will be liable for indemnity costs. Not good news for the backers of Excalibers funders!

[shaftdrive1] 18/11/2016 15:06

That's real funny, a company saying they'll not pay the Kurds!
Love it!...this story gets more bizarre every week! I see,post IS,SORRY! TPTA (The People's Thespian Army) ousted from the area,and the pesh come home,only to be redeployed (without back pay?😠) on the 'western front' ....I see a nice little stitch up coming next year,with Kurdistan being 'sidelined' ie,do as you're told,by the west/turk/iraq axis....more script to write! arf