Hurricane Energy Share Discussion Threads

[lachman] 03/6/2021 22:03

PPCEH
can you say which Broker deals T10 T20 Etc.
I'm with Hargreaves Lansdowne and AJ BELL and they Don't.

[ppceh] 03/6/2021 21:25

‘And it just so happens that 9 April was the date that CA note that "the threshold was crossed or reached”’;

The threshold is crossed on date of purchase! Otherwise I could buy T20 and close 15 days later without ever having to declare?

[nigwit] 03/6/2021 20:16

It’s obvious CA were caught out otherwise they would not have responded to the restructuring in the manner they did. I really don’t see how anyone can take hope from any of their prior actions.

Maybe they could participate in a pre-pack but that won’t help other holders.

[ghhghh] 03/6/2021 19:35

JN

We keep going round in circles. I assume you are short and want to close pre verdict?

Once again, if CA can demonstrate sufficient upside that can be confidently materialised in time to keep CBs whole, then I'd expect an extension.

I accept that this appears a long shot but they must have had a plan to keep CBs whole when they coughed up the £1.4m. This is blindingly obvious. Obviously if this plan involved accessing the cash pile they are stuffed.

[ghhghh] 03/6/2021 19:25

Tournesol

It is obvious that CA were fully aware of the bond liability and threat of dilutive wipeout.

Agreed?

So why did they cough up £1.4m? Perhaps they have been outplayed by HUR re declaring default or CV legislation. Perhaps they calculated that they would have time to call an EGM.

But until you know, this clearly represents a significant risk factor for the shorters.

[monkeybusiness1] 03/6/2021 19:09

"Shareholder Restructuring Plan Meeting" and "AGM" - Resolutions/Votes

Urge all shareholders to vote please and ASAP. The 2 main votes are on June 11 and June 30. For June 11, it is imperative to vote against now. It takes 7 days for many brokers to get the vote registered and deadline is 2 days prior to vote. For June 30, it is also important to get your against vote done and dusted.

"Shareholder Restructuring Plan Meeting" and "AGM" - Resolutions and My Votes Cast:

- Shareholder Restructuring Plan Meeting to be held on 11 June 2021 (Special Resolution) but Votes to be in before 7 June:

1. That the Restructuring Plan as set out at Appendix F of the Explanatory Statement is approved. - VOTED AGAINST

Annual General Meeting to be held on 30 June 2021 (Ordinary Resolutions):

1. To receive the Annual Report and Group Financial Statements of the Company and reports thereon of the directors and auditors for the year ended 31 December 2020.
- VOTED AGAINST

2. To re-appoint Deloitte LLP as the Company's auditors until the next Meeting and to authorise the directors to agree their remuneration.
- VOTED AGAINST

3. To elect Richard Chaffe as a director of the Company pursuant to article 62 of the Company's Articles of Association.
- VOTED AGAINST

4. To elect Antony Maris as a director of the Company pursuant to article 62 of the Company's Articles of Association.
- VOTED AGAINST

5. To re-elect Steven McTiernan as a director of the Company who retires by rotation pursuant to article 64 of the Company's Articles of Association.
- VOTED AGAINST

6. To re-elect Sandy Shaw as a director of the Company who retires by rotation pursuant to article 64 of the Company's Articles of Association.
- VOTED AGAINST

Please vote ASAP and remind the HUR BoD that Turkey's Don't Vote For Christmas!

[whitedukejay] 03/6/2021 18:42

I know Mr T wont read this ,he blocked me march last year ,the reason being with the ftse hovering around 5200 he had read WB`s outlook and come up with some nonsense of a further 20-30% drop for the markets,i called him out on it as basically eyewash after he was gleefully patting himself on the back for exiting the markets that feb.he forgot to mention this prediction of his in his track record summary, they call it cherry picking. which i might add we are all guilty of at some point.go well people.

[loglorry1] 03/6/2021 18:06

Perhaps a longshot but less than 0.001% marks you as daft.

If I had to say I'd say possibly 10% chance they avoid having the plan passed by the judge then they'll probably need c$90+ oil between now and July 2022 to pay off bonds and maybe produce a smudge of equity value. Give that a 20% weighting.

So 2% over all chance for equity.

And yes I'm not trying to tell equity to sell if all they hold is a few quids worth let. Sure roll the dice with your lottery ticket. I don't want anyone to trust me or anyone else on a BB with their hard earned cash. I'm simply discussing what might happen next.

I would be very reluctant to buy more though.

[nigwit] 03/6/2021 17:57

It’s probably true to say that long term share holders have little left to lose.

My concern is that enough people have lost already due to idiots who have been ramping for years so I don’t want to witness any more of them pumping money in only to lose it.

However, there seem to be many on both boards who are concertedly promoting a false narrative that the BoD are corrupt and this implies hidden value will be released by voting against. Not even CA have claimed that anyone has acted in bad faith or that there’s a magic instant turnaround solution to the failing, single oil well that they’ll be able to implement in the unlikely event that they can take control against the express wishes of far more powerful bond holders.

[tournesol] 03/6/2021 17:54

GHH

Perhaps a longshot but less than 0.001% marks you as daft.


Well you did ask me if I was 100% sure the restructuring would go through and you did ask me if I could possibly know more than CA given my armchair vs their intergalactic command and control centre.

So basically I'm simply saying that whilst it might be possible to conceive of a cunning plan lurking up CA's sleeve which will be whipped out with a flourish to the astonishment of the BoD and the admiring cheers of the multitude of desperate shareholders, such a development is IMHO vanishingly unlikely. I mean you can't even speculate on the shape or nature of such a plan can you? So what your comments amount to is saying that something unimaginable might happen.

And the only justification that you've put forward is that CA must be very clever people and can't possibly have just got things wrong.

And of course they could easily have got things wrong - I mean look at all the big names in Investment who have dropped major clangers over the years. Remember Mr Woodward? Remember Philip Green? Just because somebody has been rated a genius in the past does not mean they are infallible.

And not to put too fine a point on it, look back a year or 18 months and compare my decision making wrt Hur shares with CA's. I have done a much better job of calling inflection points than they have.

And there have been a number of occasions when I've called the E&P sector right against the general market view. You know that because I've posted openly. So on E&P's my track record is not too shabby. And I exited the market in Feb 2020 in anticipation of the Covid and that has been a great move. Did CA do that?

Anyway how do you see the odds that CA will score an unexpected knock out? 5%? 10%?

Can you really attribute such CoS when the nature of their cunning wheeze remains completely unknown?

[ianparsnip] 03/6/2021 17:54

@shanew48 Nice to hear some positivity. I am similar but have nearer 100000, most at <1p. Wouldn't 50p be nice eh?

[ppceh] 03/6/2021 17:47

Log

You have admitted to being short equity? So why should any shareholders trust anything you say? You are blatantly trying to line your own nest so please go away. You are wasting your time. It’s very very simple, shareholders have got nothing material to lose.

[loglorry1] 03/6/2021 17:23

I agree with NigWit this isn't a test case of covid legislation. The extra part of the covid legislation which the BoD was relying on was not having to first seek permission from equity before cramming them. The judge didn't accept this. I think the reason was that it wasn't time critical.

Cramming equity (or a dissenting class) has been going on for hundreds of years when a company defaults on its debt and requires restructuring. If equity could vote against a cram down they always would and debt holders could never call default and try to force full recovery as per the terms of their loan.

It's also worth reading what's possible via a pre-pack. I think all the pre-conditions for this are met and equity can't stop it. hxxps://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/prepackagedbankruptcy.asp

[nigwit] 03/6/2021 17:07

“And I disagree re test case - where is the precedent? Equity will vote against and then down to the judge who will take submissions”

Yes but all the company has to show the judge is that there is no most likely, less damaging restructuring available than the one they’re proposing. The judge will then override dissenting classes. Sure he’s given shareholders a chance to come up with something else but the only option you’ve got so far is orderly winding down.

It doesn’t require precedent to understand what will happen and with 85% of bond holders already locked down who can CA, or anyone else, be hoping will help come up with anything better?

[loglorry1] 03/6/2021 16:48

@Rahosi If you want to spend £120 voting against the plan you can but there is no way 75% of the rest of the equity will vote for it so I'd save your money. Up to you though.

[rahosi] 03/6/2021 16:44

So do I vote against the restructuring now or wait to see if they add in the votes to replace the board at the AGM?

[kooba] 03/6/2021 16:42

CA delivered requisition notice on 18th May so they will have to call meeting or find a technicality why requisition improper ( I'm sure they are trying) by the 8th June I guess. But they still convene meeting as late as 28 days past that notice so we'll into July past the AGM which is nonsense in any circumstances except where the board know they will be out unless they can delay to the maximum. Really stretching things ..amazing how quickly they were able to call the restructuring meeting in comparison ..called within a few days of court order and convened well within 21 days notice. Something they said in court was impossible with the GM request in court because of the articles..pick and choosing what can be done.Some Directors are up for election with the AGM on 30th so there may still be a chance to vote then if nothing resolved.

[loglorry1] 03/6/2021 16:39

GHH thinks equities way out is it's all down to Crystal Amber having a plan. Why else would they add when they knew writing was on the wall?

I think they slipped up with not foreseeing the default. This is a big deal. It wasn't known by them at the time they invested more. They were not wall crossed on the restructuring so didn't have knowledge of the default.

The default can't simple be undone at the behest of a new board. The bond trustee has been notified by the board. Once in default the principle is due. This means that the company is insolvent unless they can do a deal with the bondholders. This deal IS the proposed plan. A new board might be able to do a new deal with bondholders or they might not.

If it is not passed by equity at the vote, and the judge doesn't just sanction it regardless, what happens next? I suspect a pre-pack and bondholders take all the assets in return for the $230m they are owed. Surely they'd have this option lined up rather than giving keys to Crystal Amber?

Some may argue that the default was caused by an incompetent board who should have waited to see if the oil price saves them. Maybe so in hindsight but that's water under the bridge. The default is a technical legal event which has occurred.

[kooba] 03/6/2021 16:27

304Directors' duty to call meetings required by members(1)Directors required under section 303 to call a general meeting of the company must call a meeting-(a)within 21 days from the date on which they become subject to the requirement, and(b)to be held on a date not more than 28 days after the date of the notice convening the meeting.(2)If the requests received by the company identify a resolution intended to be moved at the meeting, the notice of the meeting must include notice of the resolution.(3)The business that may be dealt with at the meeting includes a resolution of which notice is given in accordance with this section.(4)If the resolution is to be proposed as a special resolution, the directors are treated as not having duly called the meeting if they do not give the required notice of the resolution in accordance with section 283.

[loglorry1] 03/6/2021 16:22

"Is that right? I can't actually vote to replace the board?"

The EGM vote to replace the board has not been announced yet. It probably will happen but depends on what happens at the shareholder/bondholder vote first and what the judge does - if the judge allows the plan then its game over anyway and the EGM is irrelevant.

[shanew48] 03/6/2021 16:09

400000 shares @ 1.27 have a short term first slice target of 5p then will let the rest run for the long term, would love 50p one day, time will tell obviously if we will see those heights but getting rid of this BOD is the first step.