Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

[whitedukejay] 25/5/2021 17:24

Nigwit wrong with me too im not qualified to tell anyone to buy or sell HUR and never have ,after my initial loss i have traded HUR on many occasions ,i will never get the money i lost back but im chipping away at it slowly.

[nigwit] 25/5/2021 17:04

whitedukejay, Kooba, rampers et al

"Kenneth Goldsmith wrote a good book you can relate to "wasting time on the internet"
Read it,it might take your mind off HUR for a few hours and do you good."

I took my mind off HUR for three years and I am very pleased I did. How did it work for you and the other space cadets? Did you take your minds off even for a few minutes? No, you ramped it all the way down.

You may say I lack empathy but you're wrong. I just lack empathy for those delusion rampers like you who are trying to convince others to buy into a share that was 60p when I sold but recently hit 0.6p. I hope you don't suck in any more with your fairy stories only for them to lose their pensions too.

[luckyjoe999] 25/5/2021 16:50

Post from lse bb today:

senseman
Today 14:15
Posts: 326
Price: 1.102

Have emailed Mr Justice Zacaroli at [e-mail] & urge all PI's to do so

'SUBJECT: URGENT ATTN OF: MR JUSTICE ZACAROLI: CASE NO CR-2021-000852: HURRICANE ENERGY

Dear Mr Justice Zacaroli,

On 21 May you ordered, inter alia, a Shareholder Plan Meeting be held on 11 June, and a Sanction Hearing be held at a later date. I now understand this will commence on 21 June.

On 19 May, Crystal Amber Fund (the Company’s second largest institutional shareholder) notified the Company that it wished a Requisition Meeting be convened. The Resolutions of that Meeting to be voted on being that five named directors be removed from office with immediate effect, and that two Crystal Amber Fund nominees be appointed as additional directors with immediate effect.

Since the Company’s proposed Restructuring Plan dilutes shareholders’ financial interest by 95% and is in the view of most shareholders wholly unnecessary, it is near certain that the Requisition Meeting’s proposals will succeed. In which case, there will exist a new Board of Directors which is immediately likely to withdraw the proposed Restructuring Plan with the intention of submitting an alternative plan, which may well include a significant injection of equity capital.

It is clear that the tactic of the current board is to delay the Requisition Meeting (the EGM) until 30 June when the Company AGM is to be held, or even later until 7 July should it decide that the AGM and EGM will not be held simultaneously. To this end, on 24 May, Hurricane issued an RNS detailing the 11 June Shareholder Plan Meeting without any reference to the EGM. This despite Innumerable shareholders having written to the Company requesting that both Meetings be joined as one on 11 June. The Company’s Articles enable the EGM to be held from 8 June and so it seems clear that a delay until after the proposed sanction date hearing is a deliberate attempt to achieve bondholder dilution and protect the current conflicted board of directors.

It would surely be counter-intuitive and quixotic for a Sanction Hearing to take place on 21 June when shareholders have voted against the Restructuring Plan and the Company is intentionally delaying the holding of a Requisition Meeting where five of seven directors will likely be asked to depart the Company with immediate effect, and consequently the proposed Restructuring Plan be withdrawn.

I write courteously requesting your consideration that a further Order be issued relisting the Sanction Hearing on a date later than 7 July, such date being the end-date by which the Company is obliged to convene the Requisition Meeting. I consider this to be in the interests of the bondholders as well as the shareholders. Given that all interest is being paid on the bonds and repayment will be more than one year away, this relatively short deferral would be to the detriment of no party and is likely to be of assistance.

Thank you for considering this request

You

[1liam] 25/5/2021 16:22

Going BLUE!

[1liam] 25/5/2021 15:35

Tick up into close.

[kooba] 25/5/2021 15:19

$20m of equipment in a warehouse somewhere for the Lincoln Crestal tie back ?? A tie back postponed last year but they continued to take equipment in , that has now been abandoned?

[laserdisc] 25/5/2021 15:13

Cash capital expenditure in the period was $62.0 million reflecting, in the most part, items previously committed to or capital expenditure required to meet work obligations under the Group's licences. Expenditure on GLA activities related to preparations for gas export work, long-lead items in preparation for future drilling activity, and the cost of scoping production enhancement opportunities for the Lancaster field (including a possible water injector and a side-track of the existing 205/21a-7z

long-lead items ?

[thecomposer] 25/5/2021 14:47

Deja vu here with every BoD RNS release, lol, but nevertheless, HUR BoD cannot hide significantly increasing Brent prices along with still very decent Production levels here in place, and the continuously increasing company cash in the bank as a result, although, they will certainly do all the "creative accounting" possible to push their proposed "Giveaway Scam" agenda forward.

HUR’s incompetent, arrogant, and clearly deceitful Executive Team/BoD have taken their long-suffering Shareholders hostage ever since this “giveaway scam” was cooked around last August, and have subsequently shown nothing but contempt for long neglected suffering shareholders which they are supposed to represent and whom pay their salaries (clearly now any share price rise here very much upsets and scares them as it further undermines their ridiculous “giveaway scam”), no doubt that I smell many rats here including Kerogen's suspicious silence, hopefully FCA will eventually shed some light on the many strange ongoings with HUR Executive Management and Board of Directors since ~last August.

NOW TIME TO ENSURE THAT WE ALL VOTE and KICKOUT THIS SCUM NON-REPRESENTATIVE BoD, and TAKE BACK CONTROL OF OUR COMPANY.

[kooba] 25/5/2021 14:41

Whatever this has to do with Hurricane who knows...you guys think the company gives only factual information and you 100% believe their every interpretation. Anyone who questions anything is therefore a nutter?How did that work out in 2017?

[whitedukejay] 25/5/2021 14:37

Kenneth Goldsmith wrote a good book you can relate to "wasting time on the internet"
Read it,it might take your mind off HUR for a few hours and do you good.

[loglorry1] 25/5/2021 14:23

Yes lots of other examples of this. Currently there are a load of people who think the world is flat and have loads of pseudo science to support it. There was a fascinating Netflix documentary hxxps://www.netflix.com/gb/title/81015076

They even setup a big laser across a flat lake with a hoop which it would go through on the other side to show that there was no curve. When it missed the hoop (cos of the world's curve) they just explained it away.

Best to be open minded though. You never know it might be flat :-)

[nigwit] 25/5/2021 14:09

Have any of you ever read “When Prophesy Fails”? It’s a book concerning a group of ordinary people in the 1950s who became convinced the world would end in a catastrophe but they would be saved by an alien abduction. The group was infiltrated by social scientists who wrote about the experience. It’s an early study into a cognitive dissonance that we now call confirmation bias.

The catastrophe never came and neither did the aliens but the sect the people formed still exists.

It seems many of them invested in Hurricane Energy.

Here’s the wiki.

[kooba] 25/5/2021 12:51

Difficult to say they can't call a meeting in 21/22 days as CA requested ( now 30 days to new sanction hearing) because of articles but they then call a restructuring meeting in 17days.

[zen12] 25/5/2021 12:41

On GM...it looks like they may have misled the judge! BoD could be in deep waters with the judge...

[zen12] 25/5/2021 12:39

The crux as CA put in their RNS is this. All confidence lost in BoD here...The Fund concluded that it had lost confidence in the board of Hurricane. The Fund subsequently requested that both the Chairman and the Senior Independent Director resign immediately. They refused to do so.

[kooba] 25/5/2021 12:24

Company articles.Period of notice38.1 An annual general meeting shall be called by not less than 20 working days' notice, and any general meeting by 21 clear days' notice or, subject to the Statutes, 14 clear days' notice provided that a general meeting, notwithstanding that it has been called by shorter notice than that specified above, shall be deemed to have been duly called if it is so agreed:-Where do articles prevent calling a GM before the sanction hearing?

[kooba] 25/5/2021 12:19

The requisition was delivered to the company on 18th May that is the start date not RNS date I reckon.Minor point but accurate.

[kooba] 25/5/2021 12:02

I am fully aware of the law..I am pointing to the Hurricane lawyer in court saying that they could not call a meeting within the time frame requested by CA because of the company articles. This is not true...they could have called a GM. Them using the full extent of the permissible law so they don't have to face their shareholders is hardly showing they are prepared to be held to account and defend their actions? This is deliberately choreographed to ensure they don't . Though if the sanction meeting does go through and there has been several days set aside it is quite possible the shares will not be issued in time for the AGM / GM so shareholders could still vote them out I guess?

[kooba] 25/5/2021 11:53

They might not have quite the time that the board had and have only just got highly price sensitive detail of the financials produced by the board to accompany the fait accompli restructuring that have presumably been shared with bondholders for many months , but they have now got slightly longer to the 18th sanction meeting , maybe it will take less time for their financial and technical advisors to pull holes in it than it did to produce??

[1liam] 25/5/2021 11:25

Cheep at half the price.

[loglorry1] 25/5/2021 11:23

>I agree with all of that (except slam dunk), this is obviously what CA are attempting to do.

So why did you say it would be daft?

BTW it's easy for CA to produce a document but it has to be credible. I guess that's where it will fall down for them. How can it be more credible to a court than the BoD's opinion backed up by PWC and the CPR among others.

[ghhghh] 25/5/2021 11:19

JN

I honestly think that if shareholders/CA want to convince the judge of their position then they need to quit the wild claims of "scam", "shafting shareholders", "conspiracy" etc and instead produce a sensible professional document that backs up their claims. All it needs is a document setting out in detail a strategy that the company could follow to generate $230m of cash (less the current cash and less the cash needed for decommissioning liabilities and other liabilities) between now and July 2022 and it's a slam dunk for shareholders.

I agree with all of that (except slam dunk), this is obviously what CA are attempting to do.