Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

[kooba] 29/5/2021 15:41

The truth behind who is being honest on engagement ..CA or The Board is pretty clear in Hurricanes submission.Not sure if since April'21 means beginning or end of the month to be fair ..but when CA were commenting the company had blanked them for 4-5 months and only 'reached out' without providing any information or responding to the requested board seat once they had struck a deal that largely prevented any alternative.The company believes they were duty bound to ensure that nothing hampered the restructuring..so was the intention in engagement constructive or just to tie leading shareholders hands by wall crossing them?"In light of the terms of the Restructuring and, in particular, the significant dilution of the Plan Company's existing shareholders which will occur as a result of the Bonds Exchange, since April 2021 the Plan Company has sought to engage with certain large shareholders, in order to ascertain whether they would be willing to engage with the Plan Company in relation to the terms of the Restructuring or otherwise provide financial support to the Plan Company. "

[kooba] 29/5/2021 15:33

The initial term of the Bareboat Charter will expire in June 2022, unless, by no later than 4 June 2021, the Group exercises an option to extend for a period of three years, to June 2025. There is no possibility, on the current contractual terms, to extend the Bareboat Charter for a shorter period. As set out further at paragraph 7.6 of Part 6 (Overview of the Restructuring Plan, the Restructuring and its effects) below, the Restructuring Plan is dependent on the Bluewater FPSO continuing to be available to the Group. For the reasons set out at Part 9 (Risk Factors), the Plan Company is currently in negotiations with Bluewater in relation to the extension of the Bareboat Charter for a shorter period than is currently contemplated by its terms (i.e. less than three years).

[kooba] 29/5/2021 15:26

The contract with Bluewater needs to be confirmed next week I believe, a major capital commitment that would have to be approved by bondholders before plan sanctioning is heard.I imagine they have managed to get a delay subject to restructuring..just not informing anyone.Trying to come up with alternatives must be like fighting with both hands tied behind your back I imagine , the board has made sure they have blocked all roads it seems , but they didn't see the court order coming so maybe not out manoeuvred everything ?

[porrohmahnn] 29/5/2021 15:04

As regards the AM, the nearby Foinaven Field needs a replacement FPSO that is suitable for WoS environment or an expensive tie back to Glen Lyon or P&A.

[kooba] 29/5/2021 14:58

Not impossible Bluewater can walk away if the company goes into administration depends on the contract so a pre pack might not be as simple and cash flow could be in jeopardy . could be buying a liability?

[ghhghh] 29/5/2021 14:43

JakNife

If you read HUR’s submission to the court they approached the institutional shareholders (two) to discuss the proposal with then and to give them the opportunity to put cash into the business. Kerogan declined the offer whereas CA simply refused to be wall-crossed and so HUR couldn’t discuss anything with them.

Can you please explain why CA needed to be inside in order to get their listed questions answered? And an equity raise was never a viable option. I assume you are short?

Fan

With the Aoka Mizu being such an efficient vessel, whats to stop Bluewater pulling the plug in June

If AM have a better option then both CBs and especially equity lose out. If they don't, then likelihood that HUR can negotiate a good deal.

[fandagle] 29/5/2021 14:30

With the Aoka Mizu being such an efficient vessel, whats to stop Bluewater pulling the plug in June outwith all these Shenanigans, perhaps all the sheep are looking in the wrong direction...

[kooba] 29/5/2021 13:38

If you read the Company stated approaches were made to leading shareholders after April 2021...date in court already booked I guess.

[jam2day] 29/5/2021 12:00

Tell the BOD to shove it!

[rahosi] 29/5/2021 11:40

Can someone please advise the wording one should send to one's broker to object to the BoD's proposal

[jacks13] 29/5/2021 09:10

JakNife if you follow CA's narrative they spoke to them after (long after) the ink was dried.

[nigwit] 29/5/2021 09:10

"I assume JakNife and NigWit are also short, hence all the multiple posts."

No - I just disagree with ramping given the harm it has done (see the LSE board last night)

I'm interested in the story because I was a holder from 2015 to 2019. I have had no position since then either way. I don't even have a spread betting account I could use to open a short. If I had been short I would have closed it long ago with huge profits since it has fallen from 60p.

ASSUME - you know what it means!

[ghhghh] 29/5/2021 08:16

Log/Tim

Long time! Hope you are well

The Tim I knew would definitely now be short HUR. And too smart to waste his time on BB’s! I don’t short but agree looks a good risk reward especially if you entered at c.1.5p. I assume JakNife and NigWit are also short, hence all the multiple posts.

What I don’t understand is, to make the big bucks, you have to wait for the Judge to approve the restructuring. Hence the current share price is irrelevant.

So why the all the posts? Unless you are worried about an irrational bounce pre judgement and margin calls?

Or do you intend to close pre judgement?

[kooba] 29/5/2021 07:56

It seems clear that the BoD are too scared to face their shareholders and will delay the GM as long as possible. For those who are dissatisfied with their approach and frustrated that their rights will be stripped before the Board can be held to account ...the vote on the restructuring deal should be viewed as an opportunity to show your support or utter rejection of the board as well as the plan. A strong no vote will clearly be interpreted by the court as a rejection of the plan and the Board. This might be the last chance for shareholders to have any say in the company's affairs and remember the board wanted to deprive you of this! Whilst not necessarily having much weight in court the Judge ordered you to have this opportunity so take it. Your votes will mean absolutely nothing if this goes through so send the court a message.

[glavey] 29/5/2021 04:17

"beyond reasonable doubt" :-)


Isn't CA's case similar to that of a patient who's been told to prepare for the worst saying they would like a second opinion, whilst time still permits.

[glavey] 29/5/2021 03:44

Log,
"They are not just giving up the $50m they are also extending maturity and relaxing covenants and a default so that the company can continue as a going concern."

Similar to the worthless paper view, in the three cases presented, the company doesn't appear as an [on] 'going concern' but one that is being wound down. The only differences seem to be the manner and the timing.

It's already been said that, based on company communications, there doesn't seem to be much sense for bondholders to look beyond the NFA case, either pre or post restructuring.

[peaky00] 28/5/2021 23:34

Any1 seen Fat Frank?

[loglorry1] 28/5/2021 21:42

Yep that's me Paul.

[nigwit] 28/5/2021 21:33

They’re going to the Serious Fraud Office on the other board.

See what all the ramping does to people?

[tournesol] 28/5/2021 19:42

Jacks

..I can see why those that are invested are not best pleased….

yes of course.

But being displeased is not in and of itself a strategic plan. I'm displeased about a lot of things but I don;t try to sabotage them when there appears to be no viable alternative.


The sad truth is that

THERE IS NO VIABLE PLAN B

Voting against restructuring doe not solve the problem it just kicks the can down the road. The problem is that the road is leading over the edge of a cliff and there are no alternative routes.

[jacks13] 28/5/2021 19:12

What you say tournesol may be correct and anyone not invested in the company might more readily admit to that. But I can see why those that are invested are not best pleased.

Yes, the board has broadcast the message that the company is heading for the rocks, so some credit to them there. But that’s where any credit ends. I don’t accuse them of behaving dishonestly. Incompetently, maybe. But they most definitely have not acted in good faith. In normal times shareholders would have had a voice. The board have behaved without a shred of honour in using Covid legislation, that in part at least was intended to protect a company from the ravages of its creditors; not to be used to disenfranchise its owners. The irony.

We know they will have followed the textbook and the judge apparently had no quibble with the usage of the legislation. But being right in law is only part of the story. Listed companies have no problem espousing their championship of good governance, stakeholders’ interests and so forth, except here perhaps. When push came to shove they were afraid to trust their own shareholders.

Shouldn’t the board have had a plan B that involved some engagement with its shareholders? Who’s to say that wouldn’t have borne fruit. Its seems unlikely that it would but their solution looks shameful.