Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Jkx Oil & Gas Plc LSE:JKX London Ordinary Share GB0004697420 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  -0.60 -2.0% 29.40 275,589 16:35:08
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
29.00 30.00 30.00 29.50 29.80
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 76.72 22.93 9.06 3.3 50
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
16:35:08 UT 36 29.40 GBX

Jkx Oil & Gas (JKX) Latest News

More Jkx Oil & Gas News
Jkx Oil & Gas Investors    Jkx Oil & Gas Takeover Rumours

Jkx Oil & Gas (JKX) Discussions and Chat

Jkx Oil & Gas Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
19/11/202012:47JKX. Focused on Gas in and around the former Soviet Union2,548
06/2/201517:59JKX 20065,796
20/12/201210:05*** JKX ***9
08/10/200809:35JKX - over-valued132
13/10/200618:34JKX Oil & Gas - 20065

Add a New Thread

Jkx Oil & Gas (JKX) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
2020-11-25 16:35:0829.403610.58UT
2020-11-25 16:09:5129.9515,0004,492.50O
2020-11-25 16:09:2229.7015,0004,455.00O
2020-11-25 15:56:5729.706,6731,981.88O
2020-11-25 15:50:2729.286,3831,868.94O
View all Jkx Oil & Gas trades in real-time

Jkx Oil & Gas (JKX) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
25/11/2020
08:20
Jkx Oil & Gas Daily Update: Jkx Oil & Gas Plc is listed in the Oil & Gas Producers sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker JKX. The last closing price for Jkx Oil & Gas was 30p.
Jkx Oil & Gas Plc has a 4 week average price of 21.75p and a 12 week average price of 16.20p.
The 1 year high share price is 35.40p while the 1 year low share price is currently 13.50p.
There are currently 171,723,145 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 275,714 shares. The market capitalisation of Jkx Oil & Gas Plc is £50,486,604.63.
30/10/2020
11:52
2seabass: Still feels as if there is a constant seller holding share price down. Gas price shot up recently and co making money, with also prospect of compensation payout,should shoot up soon.
15/10/2020
16:54
ganamead: By John Helmer, Moscow source 2016The takeover of London-listed JKX Oil and Gas Plc, which was completed last week with a purge of the board and senior management, is an operation for the benefit of Igor Kolomoisky (lead image, right) and Gennady Bogolyubov, the Ukrainian oligarchs, according to sources in Kiev, Moscow, and London. Proxima Capital Group, a Moscow-based investment firm which won a vote of JKX shareholders on January 28 with 19.97% of the shares and took over leadership of the company, is led lby Vladimir Tatarchuk (left). Proxima has announced it has a “fresh perspectiveâ€? towards Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov, but Tatarchuk won’t say what that means. The sources claim he means a deal with Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov.The two Ukrainians, who share ownership of Privat Bank, the largest of the private Ukrainian banks, already own part of the state-controlled oil and gas producer Ukrnafta, plus two small gas producers in Ukraine â€" Burisma and KUB-Gas; the KUB-Gas sale and purchase for $30 million was announced this week. Market sources also believe Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov are aiming at a third Ukrainian gas producer, Misen Energy. In each case, Ukrainian market sources say, they are concealing their interest behind offshore holdings and apparently independent managers.JKX has oil and gas (mostly gas) extraction concessions in Ukraine, Russia, Hungary and Slovakia. The Ukrainian operations account for a third of the company’s reserves, but most of of its current production and income.1771_1Source: http://www.jkx.co.uk/where-we-operate/ukraine.aspxThe results for 2015 have yet to be released. In 2014 the company reported gas production was up modestly, but revenue was down 19% to $146.2 million. A small operating profit was wiped out by write-offs in asset value. A claim to recover $270 million in taxes disputed with the Ukraine government has been pending in the local courts and at the Energy Charter Tribunal in Brussels. In 2015 JKX’s gas output reportedly dropped 14% compared to the year before. The market capitalization of the company is currently just £44 million.JKX FIVE-YEAR SHARE PRICE TRAJECTORY1771_2Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/JKX:LNJKX’s British management has been resisting the Kolomoisky group since 2013. In three years of this contest, Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov have operated through Eclairs Group Ltd. (British Virgin Islands) with 27.5% of JKX; in an alliance with Glengary Overseas Ltd. (BVI) with 11.4%, owned by Alexander Zhukov. “This consolidation is in Kolomoisky’s handsâ€?, says a source engaged in the Ukrainian energy sector for more than decade. “Bogolyubov is his apparatchik.â€? As for Tatarchuk, chairman of Proxima, and Steven Lynch, who is leading a separate Moscow investment bid to take over Misen Energy, the source adds: “they are bubble people. The entire consolidation is in Kolomoisky’s hands.â€?Tatarchuk refused through his Moscow spokesman to say who, if not himself, controls Proxima’s stake in JKX, which is reportedly vested in offshore registered holdings. Last month Tatarchuk told a London newspaper: “we are absolutely independent from Kolomoisky and Zhukov. I don’t know Zhukov and I met Kolomoisky 10 years ago for half an hour.â€? The Financial Times has reported that Proxima has “denied any connection with either Eclairs or Glengary.â€?“At the centre of this case is a Ukrainian businessman called Mr Igor Kolomoisky,â€? ruled UK High Court Justice Sir Anthony Mann in August 2013, when JKX was sued by Eclairs and Glengary for restricting their power to cast their shareholding votes against management control. JKX argued at the time that Kolomoisky was blocking the company’s ability to raise bank finance. The full text of the High Court judgement can be read here. “[Kolomoisky] is a very wealthy man with a number of business interests, including interests in the energy sector of which Eclairs is one,â€? swrote the judge. “Mr Gennadiy Bogolyubov is a long-standing and close friend and business associate of Mr Kolomoisky. It is said that in March 2013 he acquired an interest in some of the shares then held beneficially by Mr Kolomoisky (via a discretionay trust of which he and his family are beneficiaries)… Much of what matters in this case depends on reputations of people (principally Mr Kolomoisky), and it is not necessary to make positive findings about whether that reputation is deserved (substantiated by actual facts).â€?A complex scheme of offshore entities was used by Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov to control their JKX stake, according to the Mann ruling. “Eclairs only has an indirect interest in the shares through the numerous nominees and custodians it employs. The structure can be summarised as follows â€" the direct link to the Company is Hanover Nominees Limited (“Hanoverâ€?) which holds the shares in the Company (and is therefore registered as shareholder) as nominee for Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Limited which, in turn, holds the rights to the shares on behalf of Renaissance Advisory Services Limited and, finally, Renaissance Advisory Services Limited holds the shares as custodian for Eclairs. Thus Eclairs (a BVI company) is treated as the beneficial owner. The shares in Eclairs are currently said to be held as to 59.1% by Trival Ltd, which is owned by Mr Kolomoisky, and as to 40.9% by Marigold Trust Company Ltd (“Marigoldâ€?), which is owned by what is said to be a trust whose beneficiaries are Mr Bogolyubov and his family. How the trust acquired its shares, and the relationship between Mr Bogolyubov and Mr Kolomoisky in relation to them, is one of the matters significant to this case. “JKX argued in court it was the target of an improper raid by Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov, in league with Zhukov. The judge agreed: “Mr Kolomoisky, and probably Mr Bogolyubov with him, has [sic] a reputation as a corporate raider, that is to say a person who acquires shares (less than a majority) and then exploits that shareholding to lever his way to managerial or actual voting control by using methods such as inserting his own staff, pressurising or destabilising the current management and frustrating conventional methods of raising capital, all with the object of getting control without paying what the other shareholders would regard as a proper premium for their shares.â€?Mann decided in favour of both sides. “The directors [of JKX, led by Davis] were entitled to conclude that the claimants [Kolomoisky et al.] had not made proper disclosure of the arrangements that existed and which affected their shareholdings. He also ruled that in barring the right to vote their shares by the Kolomoisky group, JKX had exceeded its legal authority “for a purpose which was not a proper one for the purposes of that power and that its exercise should therefore be set aside.â€?This decision was appealed by JKX. In May 2014 two of the 3-judge panel ruled that JKX had acted lawfully to restrict the right of the Kolomoisky-Bogolyubov group to vote their shares against the management. “We think that any other construction of the section (or in this case JKX’s Articles) would only be an encouragement to deceitful conduct and not something which English company law should countenance.â€?The dissenting appeals court judge, Lord Justice Sir Michael Briggs, said: “Like the judge [Mann], I shall use the words ‘raid’ and ‘raider’ as shorthand for that description of corporate high-handedness. It was common ground before the judge that Messrs Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov had that reputation, but the judge made clear (correctly in my view) that it was no part of his task to ascertain whether that reputation was well-deserved, by either of them. It was sufficient that the reputation existed, and that it was known about by a number of JKX’s directors, and by all of them when the decision was taken to impose the Restrictions.â€?1771_3The case then went on a further appeal. On December 2, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Kolomoisky group. The judgement was written by Lord Justice Jonathan Sumption. Before he took his court seat, Sumption got an advanced education in raider methods when he was Roman Abramovich’s advocate in a successful defence against Boris Berezovsky in the High Court. Click for more on that case.In his December judgement Sumption agreed the JKX case is “about an alleged ‘corporate raid’….in this case [this] means an attempt to exploit a minority shareholding in a company to obtain effective management or voting control without paying what other shareholders would regard as a proper price.â€? He decided Kolomoisky’s reputation as a raider didn’t give JKX the right to block his share-voting rights. Sumption also concluded that just because Kolomoisky’s group had kept its purpose secret didn’t make it either improper or unlawful, and didn’t allow JKX to prevent the group from exercising the voting rights it owned. Sumption ruled that defeating a suspected raider wasn’t a good enough reason for JKX’s action. The court ruled to restore Kolomoiskly’s voting rights, dismissing the appeals court ruling in JKX’s favour.Sumption added a hook. He agreed with Judge Mann’s comment in 2013 that “had the [JKX] directors confined themselves to the proper purpose of imposing restrictions as a sanction for non-provision of information, and with a view to providing an incentive to provide that information, I think it likely, and to be frank virtually inevitable, that the directors would have reached the same decision and imposed the same restrictions.â€? Kolomoisky’s group might have been at fault, and warranted the loss of their votes, Sumption agreed. But he ruled this hypothetical out of court. “The judge did not allow the company to take the point and there has been no appeal against that refusal. Since his reason for refusing was that the claimants had not had a proper opportunity to challenge the alternative hypothesis in the course of the evidence, it seems to me that the judge’s hypothetical alternative findings are not properly before this court.â€?With victory, if not quite vindication, the Kolomoisky group then had the votes to back Proxima’s move in January to do what had been delayed since 2013. On January 28, when the JKX shareholders met, the voting went decisively in favour of the Kolomoisky group, and Proxima. Here is JKX’s notice on how the shareholder votes should be counted, issued on January 25. And here is the official vote count. With or without the Kolomoisky group votes in the count, the replacement of board directors and senior management was approved. “We are delighted,â€? Tatarchuk announced in a new company statement, “all our resolutions were passed unconditionally, without our having to rely on the votes of shareholders that are subject to legal dispute.â€?Tatarchuk and his partner at Proxima, Vladimir Rusinov, became new directors, along with Thomas Reed (below, left) , also the new chief executive; Russell Hoare (centre), the new chief financial officer; and Paul Ostling (right). Reed’s last job was with the ill-fated Russian oil company Ruspetro; Hoare has been an accountant in the Rupert Murdoch organization; Ostling, an Ernst & Young veteran, is currently on the board of Suleiman Kerimov’s Uralkali.1771_4The JKX management was a “lame duckâ€?, commented Alexander Paraschiy, energy analyst at Concorde Capital in Kiev. “The faster the unavoidable management reshuffle happens, the better it will be for the company.â€?JKX has repeatedly attacked Proxima for failing to disclose who stands behind its shareholding in JKX. Analysts in Moscow and Kiev believe Promixma is fronting, but they are reluctant to say, even off the record, whom they suspect. All suspect that in due course Proxima will sell its JKX stake to a buyer on terms already agreed. According to Sergei Pigarev, an analyst at Rye Man & Gor Securities in Moscow, Mikhail Fridman is one of those suspected of being behind the P:roxima purchase, either because he intends to establish a long-term position in the Ukrainian energy sector, or because he is aiming to re-sell to one of the Ukrainian oligarch groups in the sector, Kolomoisky included. “Mr. Fridmanâ€?, says Pigarev, “is one of the controlling shareholders of Alfa Group, this company of the 1990s which now very actively participates in corporate contests, including the share of TNK BP which was sold to Rosneft after a fierce struggle. And this is not the only asset which Fridman and his partners had originally won in this way. Therefore, participation in corporate disputes for the Fridman structures is not something surprising. Lawyers of his investment company A1 are among the best in corporate disputes in Russia.â€?Sources in Kiev and London believe the Kolomoisky group is the only likely candidate because of its established shareholding in the company; its parallel interests in other Ukrainian gas producers; and Kolomoisky’s persisting influence in Kiev.Tatarchuk has a long history of business in Ukraine on behalf of Fridman. He and Kolomoisky may not have spent more than the half-hour together Tatarchuk claims to have remembered. Others claim they have had parallel business and worked in coordination before. For example, Alfa Capital Ukraine and Kolomoisky’s Privat group both had stakes in Ukrnafta during the period when Tatarchuk was a senior executive at Alfa Bank bertween 1998 and 2004.Paraschiy at Concorde Capital in Kiev believes there is no hurry for either Proxima to sell or Kolomoisky to buy, and upset the new status quo. “As far as I know, Kolomoiskiy does not want to increase officially his stake in JKX. The current shareholder structure seem to be OK for him.â€?In a circular to the market on January 11, Proxima defended its bid to replace the JKX board and management, charging “the Company’s Ukrainian operations would seem to have failed due to a lack of operational oversight, poor decision making and a mismanagement of relations with the competent authorities in Ukraine… The board lacks independence, having operated as a closed club with limited rotation of theindependent non-executive directors and therefore insufficient challenge and oversight.â€?Proxima denied “trying to take control of JKX. This statement is false. Proxima has proposed that it be represented by two out of seven board seats. Two out of seven is not control, by any definition, while the proposed executive management team will be made up of leading international executives who are wholly independent of Proxima.â€? It also denied “proposing a ‘Russian directed’ board, which will struggle in Ukraine and lacks the requisite Ukraine experience. This statement is untrue. The new board would be led by Paul Ostling as proposed Chairman, a dual US-UK citizen, former global COO of Ernst & Young, during which time he advised hundreds of major LSE and NYSE listed businesses. The CEO and executive Board member will be Tom Reed, a US national with years of experience in oil and gas. The CFO and executive Board member will be Russell Hoare, a UK national with 15 years of relevant experience in the region.â€?As for the court battles with Kolomoisky, Proxima claimed JKX “has lurched from one dispute to another; the issues it has faced with the Ukrainian authorities and Eclairs Group and Glengary Overseas could have been handled better by management and will benefit from the fresh perspective brought by a new board.â€?Stuart Leasor, a London public relations agent representing Proxima, says: “Proxima have been very open in their announcements with relation to JKX.â€? He adds: “the money that is behind Proxima is that of the partners, no one else’sâ€?. As for the dispute with Eclairs and Glengary, he was also asked, what is meant by “handled betterâ€?, and what is the “fresh perspectiveâ€?? “Fighting with your host government and your largest shareholders,â€? Leasor replied, “is never a sensible policy anywhere, let alone in CIS countries. That view still remains valid today. JKX now has a new, dynamic and experienced board. We are confident that it will soon be outlining a plan that shows how it will successfully address the situation that JKX has been brought to… Our independent status, without any external affiliations, ensures that we always act in the best interest of clients and it helps us to seek out the most effective solutions without any vested interest constraints. Proxima is not ‘in league with’ anyone â€" not Eclairs, not Glengary, not Mikhail Fridman, not Uncle Tom Cobley, and not anyone else.â€?At Privat Bank headquarters Kolomoisky was asked to say if he had a direct or indirect interest in the Proxima shareholding in JKX; and if he would consider buying the shares if they are offered for sale. He did not reply.
10/10/2020
19:49
thordon: By John Helmer, Moscow source 2016 The takeover of London-listed JKX Oil and Gas Plc, which was completed last week with a purge of the board and senior management, is an operation for the benefit of Igor Kolomoisky (lead image, right) and Gennady Bogolyubov, the Ukrainian oligarchs, according to sources in Kiev, Moscow, and London. Proxima Capital Group, a Moscow-based investment firm which won a vote of JKX shareholders on January 28 with 19.97% of the shares and took over leadership of the company, is led by Vladimir Tatarchuk (left). Proxima has announced it has a “fresh perspective” towards Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov, but Tatarchuk won’t say what that means. The sources claim he means a deal with Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov. The two Ukrainians, who share ownership of Privat Bank, the largest of the private Ukrainian banks, already own part of the state-controlled oil and gas producer Ukrnafta, plus two small gas producers in Ukraine — Burisma and KUB-Gas; the KUB-Gas sale and purchase for $30 million was announced this week. Market sources also believe Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov are aiming at a third Ukrainian gas producer, Misen Energy. In each case, Ukrainian market sources say, they are concealing their interest behind offshore holdings and apparently independent managers. JKX has oil and gas (mostly gas) extraction concessions in Ukraine, Russia, Hungary and Slovakia. The Ukrainian operations account for a third of the company’s reserves, but most of of its current production and income. 1771_1 Source: http://www.jkx.co.uk/where-we-operate/ukraine.aspx The results for 2015 have yet to be released. In 2014 the company reported gas production was up modestly, but revenue was down 19% to $146.2 million. A small operating profit was wiped out by write-offs in asset value. A claim to recover $270 million in taxes disputed with the Ukraine government has been pending in the local courts and at the Energy Charter Tribunal in Brussels. In 2015 JKX’s gas output reportedly dropped 14% compared to the year before. The market capitalization of the company is currently just £44 million. JKX FIVE-YEAR SHARE PRICE TRAJECTORY 1771_2 Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/JKX:LN JKX’s British management has been resisting the Kolomoisky group since 2013. In three years of this contest, Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov have operated through Eclairs Group Ltd. (British Virgin Islands) with 27.5% of JKX; in an alliance with Glengary Overseas Ltd. (BVI) with 11.4%, owned by Alexander Zhukov. “This consolidation is in Kolomoisky’s hands”, says a source engaged in the Ukrainian energy sector for more than decade. “Bogolyubov is his apparatchik.” As for Tatarchuk, chairman of Proxima, and Steven Lynch, who is leading a separate Moscow investment bid to take over Misen Energy, the source adds: “they are bubble people. The entire consolidation is in Kolomoisky’s hands.” Tatarchuk refused through his Moscow spokesman to say who, if not himself, controls Proxima’s stake in JKX, which is reportedly vested in offshore registered holdings. Last month Tatarchuk told a London newspaper: “we are absolutely independent from Kolomoisky and Zhukov. I don’t know Zhukov and I met Kolomoisky 10 years ago for half an hour.” The Financial Times has reported that Proxima has “denied any connection with either Eclairs or Glengary.” “At the centre of this case is a Ukrainian businessman called Mr Igor Kolomoisky,” ruled UK High Court Justice Sir Anthony Mann in August 2013, when JKX was sued by Eclairs and Glengary for restricting their power to cast their shareholding votes against management control. JKX argued at the time that Kolomoisky was blocking the company’s ability to raise bank finance. The full text of the High Court judgement can be read here. “[Kolomoisky] is a very wealthy man with a number of business interests, including interests in the energy sector of which Eclairs is one,” swrote the judge. “Mr Gennadiy Bogolyubov is a long-standing and close friend and business associate of Mr Kolomoisky. It is said that in March 2013 he acquired an interest in some of the shares then held beneficially by Mr Kolomoisky (via a discretionay trust of which he and his family are beneficiaries)… Much of what matters in this case depends on reputations of people (principally Mr Kolomoisky), and it is not necessary to make positive findings about whether that reputation is deserved (substantiated by actual facts).” A complex scheme of offshore entities was used by Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov to control their JKX stake, according to the Mann ruling. “Eclairs only has an indirect interest in the shares through the numerous nominees and custodians it employs. The structure can be summarised as follows – the direct link to the Company is Hanover Nominees Limited (“Hanover”) which holds the shares in the Company (and is therefore registered as shareholder) as nominee for Renaissance Securities (Cyprus) Limited which, in turn, holds the rights to the shares on behalf of Renaissance Advisory Services Limited and, finally, Renaissance Advisory Services Limited holds the shares as custodian for Eclairs. Thus Eclairs (a BVI company) is treated as the beneficial owner. The shares in Eclairs are currently said to be held as to 59.1% by Trival Ltd, which is owned by Mr Kolomoisky, and as to 40.9% by Marigold Trust Company Ltd (“Marigold”), which is owned by what is said to be a trust whose beneficiaries are Mr Bogolyubov and his family. How the trust acquired its shares, and the relationship between Mr Bogolyubov and Mr Kolomoisky in relation to them, is one of the matters significant to this case. “ JKX argued in court it was the target of an improper raid by Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov, in league with Zhukov. The judge agreed: “Mr Kolomoisky, and probably Mr Bogolyubov with him, has [sic] a reputation as a corporate raider, that is to say a person who acquires shares (less than a majority) and then exploits that shareholding to lever his way to managerial or actual voting control by using methods such as inserting his own staff, pressurising or destabilising the current management and frustrating conventional methods of raising capital, all with the object of getting control without paying what the other shareholders would regard as a proper premium for their shares.” Mann decided in favour of both sides. “The directors [of JKX, led by Davis] were entitled to conclude that the claimants [Kolomoisky et al.] had not made proper disclosure of the arrangements that existed and which affected their shareholdings. He also ruled that in barring the right to vote their shares by the Kolomoisky group, JKX had exceeded its legal authority “for a purpose which was not a proper one for the purposes of that power and that its exercise should therefore be set aside.” This decision was appealed by JKX. In May 2014 two of the 3-judge panel ruled that JKX had acted lawfully to restrict the right of the Kolomoisky-Bogolyubov group to vote their shares against the management. “We think that any other construction of the section (or in this case JKX’s Articles) would only be an encouragement to deceitful conduct and not something which English company law should countenance.” The dissenting appeals court judge, Lord Justice Sir Michael Briggs, said: “Like the judge [Mann], I shall use the words ‘raid’ and ‘raider’ as shorthand for that description of corporate high-handedness. It was common ground before the judge that Messrs Kolomoisky and Bogolyubov had that reputation, but the judge made clear (correctly in my view) that it was no part of his task to ascertain whether that reputation was well-deserved, by either of them. It was sufficient that the reputation existed, and that it was known about by a number of JKX’s directors, and by all of them when the decision was taken to impose the Restrictions.” 1771_3 The case then went on a further appeal. On December 2, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Kolomoisky group. The judgement was written by Lord Justice Jonathan Sumption. Before he took his court seat, Sumption got an advanced education in raider methods when he was Roman Abramovich’s advocate in a successful defence against Boris Berezovsky in the High Court. Click for more on that case. In his December judgement Sumption agreed the JKX case is “about an alleged ‘corporate raid’….in this case [this] means an attempt to exploit a minority shareholding in a company to obtain effective management or voting control without paying what other shareholders would regard as a proper price.” He decided Kolomoisky’s reputation as a raider didn’t give JKX the right to block his share-voting rights. Sumption also concluded that just because Kolomoisky’s group had kept its purpose secret didn’t make it either improper or unlawful, and didn’t allow JKX to prevent the group from exercising the voting rights it owned. Sumption ruled that defeating a suspected raider wasn’t a good enough reason for JKX’s action. The court ruled to restore Kolomoiskly’s voting rights, dismissing the appeals court ruling in JKX’s favour. Sumption added a hook. He agreed with Judge Mann’s comment in 2013 that “had the [JKX] directors confined themselves to the proper purpose of imposing restrictions as a sanction for non-provision of information, and with a view to providing an incentive to provide that information, I think it likely, and to be frank virtually inevitable, that the directors would have reached the same decision and imposed the same restrictions.” Kolomoisky’s group might have been at fault, and warranted the loss of their votes, Sumption agreed. But he ruled this hypothetical out of court. “The judge did not allow the company to take the point and there has been no appeal against that refusal. Since his reason for refusing was that the claimants had not had a proper opportunity to challenge the alternative hypothesis in the course of the evidence, it seems to me that the judge’s hypothetical alternative findings are not properly before this court.” With victory, if not quite vindication, the Kolomoisky group then had the votes to back Proxima’s move in January to do what had been delayed since 2013. On January 28, when the JKX shareholders met, the voting went decisively in favour of the Kolomoisky group, and Proxima. Here is JKX’s notice on how the shareholder votes should be counted, issued on January 25. And here is the official vote count. With or without the Kolomoisky group votes in the count, the replacement of board directors and senior management was approved. “We are delighted,” Tatarchuk announced in a new company statement, “all our resolutions were passed unconditionally, without our having to rely on the votes of shareholders that are subject to legal dispute.” Tatarchuk and his partner at Proxima, Vladimir Rusinov, became new directors, along with Thomas Reed (below, left) , also the new chief executive; Russell Hoare (centre), the new chief financial officer; and Paul Ostling (right). Reed’s last job was with the ill-fated Russian oil company Ruspetro; Hoare has been an accountant in the Rupert Murdoch organization; Ostling, an Ernst & Young veteran, is currently on the board of Suleiman Kerimov’s Uralkali. 1771_4 The JKX management was a “lame duck”, commented Alexander Paraschiy, energy analyst at Concorde Capital in Kiev. “The faster the unavoidable management reshuffle happens, the better it will be for the company.” JKX has repeatedly attacked Proxima for failing to disclose who stands behind its shareholding in JKX. Analysts in Moscow and Kiev believe Promixma is fronting, but they are reluctant to say, even off the record, whom they suspect. All suspect that in due course Proxima will sell its JKX stake to a buyer on terms already agreed. According to Sergei Pigarev, an analyst at Rye Man & Gor Securities in Moscow, Mikhail Fridman is one of those suspected of being behind the P:roxima purchase, either because he intends to establish a long-term position in the Ukrainian energy sector, or because he is aiming to re-sell to one of the Ukrainian oligarch groups in the sector, Kolomoisky included. “Mr. Fridman”, says Pigarev, “is one of the controlling shareholders of Alfa Group, this company of the 1990s which now very actively participates in corporate contests, including the share of TNK BP which was sold to Rosneft after a fierce struggle. And this is not the only asset which Fridman and his partners had originally won in this way. Therefore, participation in corporate disputes for the Fridman structures is not something surprising. Lawyers of his investment company A1 are among the best in corporate disputes in Russia.” Sources in Kiev and London believe the Kolomoisky group is the only likely candidate because of its established shareholding in the company; its parallel interests in other Ukrainian gas producers; and Kolomoisky’s persisting influence in Kiev. Tatarchuk has a long history of business in Ukraine on behalf of Fridman. He and Kolomoisky may not have spent more than the half-hour together Tatarchuk claims to have remembered. Others claim they have had parallel business and worked in coordination before. For example, Alfa Capital Ukraine and Kolomoisky’s Privat group both had stakes in Ukrnafta during the period when Tatarchuk was a senior executive at Alfa Bank bertween 1998 and 2004. Paraschiy at Concorde Capital in Kiev believes there is no hurry for either Proxima to sell or Kolomoisky to buy, and upset the new status quo. “As far as I know, Kolomoiskiy does not want to increase officially his stake in JKX. The current shareholder structure seem to be OK for him.” In a circular to the market on January 11, Proxima defended its bid to replace the JKX board and management, charging “the Company’s Ukrainian operations would seem to have failed due to a lack of operational oversight, poor decision making and a mismanagement of relations with the competent authorities in Ukraine… The board lacks independence, having operated as a closed club with limited rotation of the independent non-executive directors and therefore insufficient challenge and oversight.” Proxima denied “trying to take control of JKX. This statement is false. Proxima has proposed that it be represented by two out of seven board seats. Two out of seven is not control, by any definition, while the proposed executive management team will be made up of leading international executives who are wholly independent of Proxima.” It also denied “proposing a ‘Russian directed’ board, which will struggle in Ukraine and lacks the requisite Ukraine experience. This statement is untrue. The new board would be led by Paul Ostling as proposed Chairman, a dual US-UK citizen, former global COO of Ernst & Young, during which time he advised hundreds of major LSE and NYSE listed businesses. The CEO and executive Board member will be Tom Reed, a US national with years of experience in oil and gas. The CFO and executive Board member will be Russell Hoare, a UK national with 15 years of relevant experience in the region.” As for the court battles with Kolomoisky, Proxima claimed JKX “has lurched from one dispute to another; the issues it has faced with the Ukrainian authorities and Eclairs Group and Glengary Overseas could have been handled better by management and will benefit from the fresh perspective brought by a new board.” Stuart Leasor, a London public relations agent representing Proxima, says: “Proxima have been very open in their announcements with relation to JKX.” He adds: “the money that is behind Proxima is that of the partners, no one else’s”. As for the dispute with Eclairs and Glengary, he was also asked, what is meant by “handled better”, and what is the “fresh perspective”? “Fighting with your host government and your largest shareholders,” Leasor replied, “is never a sensible policy anywhere, let alone in CIS countries. That view still remains valid today. JKX now has a new, dynamic and experienced board. We are confident that it will soon be outlining a plan that shows how it will successfully address the situation that JKX has been brought to… Our independent status, without any external affiliations, ensures that we always act in the best interest of clients and it helps us to seek out the most effective solutions without any vested interest constraints. Proxima is not ‘in league with’ anyone – not Eclairs, not Glengary, not Mikhail Fridman, not Uncle Tom Cobley, and not anyone else.” At Privat Bank headquarters Kolomoisky was asked to say if he had a direct or indirect interest in the Proxima shareholding in JKX; and if he would consider buying the shares if they are offered for sale. He did not reply.
08/10/2020
11:42
2seabass: I bought in at about 21p and watched with incredulity as the share price slipped to 16p. Given the spot gas price is approx 50% up since spring, cash up, plus likelihood of another $11m these should go up much more from here.
24/8/2020
22:09
thordon: Couple more months be winter , gas will shoot up in price Just keep buying share price very low
11/8/2020
16:03
jaka: (Alliance News) - JKX Oil & Gas PLC on Tuesday said its first half revenue fell over 20%, despite posting a rise in output.In the six months ended June 30, revenue fell 23% annually to USD35.1 million from USD45.3 million.The Ukraine-focused energy firm's pretax profit fell by two-thirds to USD2.0 million from USD6.0 million.The earnings fall was despite average daily production rising to 10,445 barrels of oil equivalent per day, up 3.0% annually."The decline in profit is a result of the significant reduction in oil and gas prices across our operations and in line with international trends," Chair Charles Valceschini said.The company added: "In response to the fall in oil and gas prices the group implemented cost-cutting measures with effect from March 2020 and has adopted a revised 2020 Budget. The measures taken target operational and administrative expenses in the subsidiaries and the London office and most discretionary capital expenditure has been postponed until 2021, by which time it is hoped that prices will have strengthened."JKX shares fell 9.7% to 19.50 pence each in London on Tuesday afternoon.By Eric Cunha; ericcunha@alliancenews.comCopyright 2020 Alliance News Limited. All Rights Reserved.
10/8/2020
21:51
disruptor1664: I understand why he's doing it, but I truly doubt PI's looking at these spam posts will cause an share price boost.I believe there will have been people put off by this, especially if they have fell into the rabbit hole before. Which I nearly did before I spent my time researching them.We need to stop this and promote the company as good as we can, but realistically we need solid, institutional buys to come through. Interesting times ahead for JKX, hopefully good news tomorrow will turn people's heads...
03/8/2020
23:26
jaka: Ukrnafteburenie announced production results for 6 months of 2020News / 07/29/2020 For 6 months of 2020 the company PJSC "DK" Ukrnefteburenie "produced 381.8 million m 3 of natural gas, which is 8% more than in the same period of the previous year (353.5 million m 3 ). The volume of oil and condensate production was comparable to the level of 2019 and amounted to 43.7 thousand tons.In general, the production of gas Sakhalin field for 6 months 2020 totaled 441.9 mio m 3 , oil and condensate - 46.5 tons.UNB SHAREHOLDER BASEThe largest shareholders of Ukrnaftoburinnya are Deripon Comercial Ltd. (Cyprus) - 44.989%, registered at the same address in London "Ares Systems Ltd." (Great Britain) and Ariana Business Limited - 22.4996% each, as well as JKX Ukraine BV - 10%. People's Deputy Vitaly Khomutynnik told Novoye Vremya in August 2016 that he owns Deripon Commercial Ltd. on a parity basis with Igor Kolomoisky.MICHAEL BAKUNENKO, NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JKXMichael Bakunenko is an Executive Chairman of the Board at PJSC Ukrnaftoburinnya, the third largest private oil and gas E&P Company in Ukraine since September 2015. From 2011 to 2015 Mr. Bakunenko was Deputy Board Chairman, Director of Corporate Development and Strategy at PJSC Ukrnafta, the largest oil company in Ukraine. Prior to this Mr. Bakunenko worked for 8 years in the investment banking industry, notably at Goldman Sachs in New York and Renaissance Capital in Moscow and Kiev.Mr. Bakunenko holds a Bachelor's degree from Lehigh University and Master's degree from Columbia University.JKX SHAREHOLDERSThe free float is also low with only 22% of the shares in public hands. The shareholder register shows that Ukrainian oligarchs (or their vehicles) own a significant percentage of the company. A risk would be that they may attempt to take the company private should the share price languish BUT more positively the oligarchs and JKX, via a 10% stake, are also involved with Ukrnaftoburinnya 'UNB' which is growing quickly. Were UNB interested in floating they may consider an RTO of JKX which could materially re-rate the share price.
19/6/2020
10:25
jailbird: JKX Oil & Gas PLC Result of AGMSource: UK Regulatory (RNS & others)TIDMJKXRNS Number : 5200QJKX Oil & Gas PLC19 June 2020LEI: 213800AS2I1XUAGQ6F2719 June 2020JKX Oil & Gas plc("JKX", the "Company" or the "Group")Result of AGMJKX announces that at its AGM this morning Ordinary Resolutions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and Special Resolution 11 were passed. A table showing the voting is below.Commenting on the AGM, Charles Valceschini, Chairman of JKX's Board, said, "The last twelve months have seen a unique combination of events. Yet despite facing a global pandemic, with all that this entailed, the collapse in hydrocarbon prices, and significant changes in the composition of the JKX Board, there have been many reassuring things to report."Your company is now debt free, for the first time in many years, with reserves of $14.7m of cash, cash equivalents and product inventory at 31 May 2020. Production for 1Q2020 was up 11% year on year after already rising by 20% over the full year 2019. A number of long-outstanding claims brought by the Ukrainian tax authorities have been settled in our favour and the Board has adjusted its previous work programme and budget with a view to increasing your Company's resilience in a challenging commercial environment."We are all too aware of the external challenges we face, but we believe that our fundamentals are sound and in a better position than they have been for years. We are confident that this will be recognised by the market." contact rns@lseg.com or visit www.rns.com.ENDRAGFLMMTMTBBBIM(END) Dow Jones NewswiresJune 19, 2020 06:16 ET (10:16 GMT)
31/10/2019
22:28
jaka: 13:44 / 10.31.2019 INTERFAX-UKRAINE CEO JKX Gladun: Ukraine needs to follow commitments made to investors regarding unchanged gas production rents Exclusive interview of the CEO of the British oil and gas company with assets in Ukraine, JKX Victor Gladun, to the Interfax-Ukraine news agency - What do you plan to concentrate on as the new JKX CEO? - For me, this appointment is not new. At the end of June 2017, I was appointed acting CEO of the company. I was responsible for the work of the entire group half of 2017 and part of 2018. The recent appointment is a decision of the board of directors, the basis for which were the results of operations when JKX managed to reverse the downward trend in production in Ukraine. Currently, I am preparing a plan for the development of the company for the board of directors, assessing its history and available assets. Based on this review, decisions will be made regarding the further development of JKX. The only thing I can say for sure right now is that JKX Ukraine has always been a priority, since Ukrainian assets have been the most successful. With restrained confidence, I can say that we will continue to continue investing in Ukraine, in the Poltava Gas and Oil Company (PPC). - If we talk about plans for activities in Ukraine, how can legislative initiatives regarding changes in rental rates for gas production affect the drilling of new wells? - Let's go back to 2014. Then the tax rates were abruptly changed. Perhaps not entirely justified, but we are well aware of what this was connected with. PPC decided not to invest in drilling, since all projects under such a taxation regime would be unprofitable. Accordingly, in the absence of new wells and significant intensification, PPC showed a decrease in production. The business is quite complex, but at the same time the correlation is simple: the suspension of exploration, drilling and stimulation leads to a drop in production. In 2015, we recommended the Yatsenyuk government to fix rental rates at 10% both for wells up to 5 km deep and for wells over 5 km, and also freeze this rate for 10 years.IF) These changes were not significantly different from what we insisted on earlier. I believe this was a great achievement of parliament, government, industry and business associations. But the period for which the state guaranteed the stability of rates was five, not 10 years. With the volatility of the market in which last year the cost of 1 thousand cubic meters. m of gas amounted to $ 360, and in September this year, two times lower - $ 160-170, it is difficult to calculate the project payback correctly. With unstable royalties, this task is complicated at times. If the rent in fact is not fixed for 5-10 years, it jumps from 12% to 29% or up to 55%, for example, then projects for drilling new wells become simply unprofitable. I, as the head of a company whose shares are traded on the London Stock Exchange, I can not get confirmation from the board of directors for the implementation of a knowingly unprofitable project. With such a frequency of legislative changes, no foreign direct investment will come into the country, the domestic investor will also think three times whether he should invest. The people who worked on introducing incentive annuities, including Olga Belkova and Roman Opimakh, did a great job in 2017 to convince parliament, government and society of the benefits and benefits of such royalties. Now it is necessary to demonstrate to investors that the adopted changes will be valid until the end of the previously designated period, i.e. for five years. Under such conditions, the state receives not only royalties, but also additional gas production, that is, it takes an additional step towards energy independence. I understand that the desire to change rental rates is based on the opinion that we, gas producers, are making super profit. But why not increase royalties, for example, to 99% ?! I believe that for a country, if it has already given certain guarantees to market participants, it will be an extremely negative step even to initiate any growth, especially to discuss and adopt the relevant amendments. It is not known what the initiatives of the new MPs are based on, but they negatively affect the stable development of the industry and those first investments that have just begun to go to Ukraine. You need to leave rental rates at the current level. Moreover, I consider it necessary to increase the period of fixed rates from five to 10 years. Then it will be not in words, but in fact a desire for energy independence. By fixing current rates for 10 years, Ukraine will provide a significant increase in investment in the industry. but they negatively affect the stable development of the industry and those first investments that have just begun to go to Ukraine. You need to leave rental rates at the current level. Moreover, I consider it necessary to increase the period of fixed rates from five to 10 years. Then it will be not in words, but in fact a desire for energy independence. By fixing current rates for 10 years, Ukraine will provide a significant increase in investment in the industry. but they negatively affect the stable development of the industry and those first investments that have just begun to go to Ukraine. You need to leave rental rates at the current level. Moreover, I consider it necessary to increase the period of fixed rates from five to 10 years. Then it will be not in words, but in fact a desire for energy independence. By fixing current rates for 10 years, Ukraine will provide a significant increase in investment in the industry. In 2016, we started investing in overhauls, and in 2018, after incentive rental rates were introduced, we started new drilling. It took us half of 2017 and all of 2018 to change the trend from fall to growth. Until there is a final decision of the parliament, I can’t talk about whether we will dispute the increase in rental payments in court, but if we adopt the relevant standards, we will definitely review investment program, I promise. - How does the company's plans for drilling reflect a fall in world gas prices? - It is difficult to say what the price will be in a month or two. Futures will show prices at the level of $ 260 in the near future, but at the same time they may deviate from the fact by 10-40%. In the last six to seven months, the price has almost halved, which significantly worsens the payback and profitability of projects of companies, including ours. We are negotiating with contractors on price reductions, recounting models, reviewing drilling plans for various wells, investment projects in general. “But while you are following the plan approved last year?” - Yes. Now we are drilling two wells, one we will finish in November, and the completion of another will be completed by the end of the year. We have our approved program, and there is cooperation with other companies. - Can you disclose the cost of drilling your wells? - Depends on the depth and drilling conditions. At shallow depths, a direct correlation is observed, further - the price doubles. In general, if we are talking about a well up to 5 km, then the cost of drilling can be approximately equal to $ 5 million, more than 5 km can grow at times. For example, at a depth of more than 7 km, the issue price may reach $ 20-25 million, depending on geological conditions. In addition, there are additional costs for turnkey drilling. Speaking specifically about us, then in our fields all the wells are up to 5 km. Relatively speaking, at a depth of 3.5 km meters, the price of drilling will be approximately $ 3.5 million. We hire foreign specialists, our own employees draw on their experience and study. In addition, we have our own technical experts - technical director, supervisor, consultant. They've been drilling for decades and their experience saves us a lot of money. Perhaps in Ukraine we are one of the industry leaders in the relatively low cost of drilling and overhaul. - Does PPC intend to participate in oil and gas auctions for the sale of special permits? - We positively evaluate both this initiative for the transparent sale of licenses and the projects for signing production sharing agreements (PSAs). But we did not take part in electronic auctions, because we wanted the best quality of special permissions. Our geologists did not give us the green light to fight for them. But at the same time, we observe the interest of other market participants and do not exclude the possibility that in the near future we will also be fighting for licenses at auctions. I think that this initiative is correct, market-oriented and transparent. If we see something attractive, then we will participate. - What are the company's plans for the production of gas, oil and condensate for 2019-2020? - This year we show results above last year's average of 50% in barrels of oil equivalent (boepd). But last year we had a growth of 5%. After five years of decline, it is easy enough to demonstrate growth. The work in 2020 will be indicative. - What volumes of gas do you currently store in underground gas storage facilities? - We have sufficient gas reserves, the highest ever in the history of PPCs. On September 30, 2019, we had 54 million cubic meters in storage. m - What are the company's investment plans for 2020? - We will carefully look at legislative changes, price dynamics, but tentatively, tens of millions of dollars. The plans of the previous leadership were more aggressive - by hundreds of millions. The company is extremely careful about every project. We analyze them step by step, study what has been done and what hasn’t. Based on the results of the implementation, we quickly change our plans and move forward. This is a balanced position and over the past three years it has fully justified itself. It is confirmed by the new composition of the board of directors. We will continue to develop the company based on existing projects included in the five-year plan. - Why have there been such significant changes in the composition of the council? - JKX shares are traded on the stock exchange, and shareholders are very closely monitoring performance. Despite the fact that he was good, high prices in Ukraine acted as his driver. Yes, we have changed the trend, but probably most of the shareholders felt that it could work even better. - What is your relationship with Ukrnaftoburinnya (UNB)? Is there any interaction? - If we talk about PPC, then it (UNB) is for us the same direct competitor as other market participants. -And speaking of JKX, which owns a 10% stake in UNB? - JKX, as a minority shareholder, does not participate in the management of the company. We are watching the success of the UNB, we wish it good luck as well as other companies in the market. - In addition to the UNB, do the main JKX shareholders have any other oil and gas assets in Ukraine? - We do not monitor the ownership structure of their assets in other companies. - To implement your investment plans, the company has enough own financing? - There is enough own liquidity. We have enough funds for our and partner projects that we are implementing now. Several years ago, when we had problems with liquidity, TAScombank opened a line of credit for PPC that we have not yet used. But, we have it, and, if necessary, we can use it. We are very grateful to our partners that they supported us. - Speaking about joint projects with other Ukrainian companies, at what stage is the Ukrgazvydobuvannya competition for the conclusion of PEC (production enhancement contract) at the present time? - PPC, as one of the four companies qualified for participation in the competition, gained access to the virtual data room, signed an agreement on non-disclosure of information, and deposited $ 1 million in deposit. Now we are studying the information. And here it is just that if our proposal is competitive, and we win, then we will need additional liquidity in order to invest in intensification. - Based on the data that you have access to, how has the interest in the project changed? - I can’t comment on this yet. The only thing I can add is the process is correct, there is enough time to study. If we talk about PEC as a whole, then this is a very interesting form of cooperation. We have been waiting for such projects for more than five years. GWF has depleted deposits and is looking among market leaders for those who know how to work with such deposits in order to transfer them to operational activities. That's right, this is international practice. Ukrnafta is doing a similar project - it puts up blocks with wells that need repair and intensification. In the first project of Ukrnafta, which was six months ago, we decided not to participate. The current project is more interesting for us and I hope that we will become one of the finalists. For its implementation, we will also need funds. In addition, we have with " It is beneficial for us and for them. Therefore, we want to expand this cooperation to other fields. It is beneficial for us and for them. Therefore, we want to expand this cooperation to other fields. - Which ones? - I’m not sure yet that I can call them, but in the near future, if the negotiations are successful, we will agree on the conditions and price. We started from the Novogrigoryevskoye field, if there is an initiative on the part of Ukrnafta, we will be happy to connect another or several fields. - What is your current sales strategy? - We always had our own trading platform, but after 2016 and my parishes as the head of the PPC, we decided to develop also as an independent one. About 10 potential partners were selected, and eventually came to the Ukrainian Energy Exchange. Then, by the way, we were the first to start trading natural gas on it. Now we sell our condensate, oil and LPG on the internal site, we will further develop it. We are currently trading natural gas on the UEB. In addition, we work on direct contracts. - How busy is your LPG plant currently? - At 90%, it works at the limit, and we plan to increase production volumes. The company embarked on a project to increase refining capacities by installing an additional column. It was ordered from Canadian Propak Systems and is currently in production. If everything goes according to plan, then we will implement this project in 2020. The project cost is half a million dollars. - And due to what you raised the load so? - Due to our own production. - At what stage are tax disputes in Ukraine currently? - The decision of the Hague arbitration, according to which we won a dispute with Ukraine for $ 12 million in the commercial part, is at the stage of legalization in Ukraine. We hope that after the Ukrainian court legalizes the arbitral award, the Ukrainian government will execute it. I think that all potential investors are looking at this case, initiated by us as one of the oldest private companies with foreign capital entering Ukraine. Whether the government will comply with the arbitration decision or search for loopholes in order to avoid this will determine what signal investors will receive. We expect that in the near future this decision will be legalized in the country and the amount won will be paid to us from the budget. I can’t talk about specific dates, since this does not depend on us. There are two more tax disputes on rental payments in 2010 and 2015 totaling $ 37.1 million. They are at the stage of legal proceedings. We are ready to comply with any court decision. - How can the probable supply of Russian gas under direct contracts affect the Ukrainian gas industry? - If we are talking about market conditions and market pricing, I think that this will not have a negative impact. If we are not talking about a market economy, then forecasting gas prices and the payback of production projects in Ukraine become even more unpredictable than usual. - Tell us about the activities of JKX in Russia. - We have a good deposit there, on which a new plant was built. In Russia, we have a very successful business in terms of production. The volume of gas production is comparable with Ukraine, but, unfortunately, the state regulation of prices is in force in the Russian Federation, as it was before with us. Given the small discount, the gas sales price is $ 58-59, which of course cannot be compared with Ukraine, where in September the gas price was $ 160-170. That is, by netback, Ukraine for JKX is much more attractive than Russia, and even Hungary, where we own six licenses for hydrocarbon production, a gas and oil preparation unit. - And what about regulatory policy? - I do not know Russian business so deeply in this regard. But in the conditions of gas market liberalization in Ukraine, we see that the situation here is no worse than in Russia, to put it mildly. - In mid-2018, JKX announced its intention to leave Slovakia and Hungary. At what stage is this process currently? - The company has left projects in Slovakia. The previous board of directors also decided to leave Hungary. The result of this process will be reported on the London Stock Exchange, until this moment we can not publish it. нат;орk2;да 76;уб085;народстолте;нбk7;рг 76;он073;асссексзоло;тоl7;ут 80;нз072;консетьднеп;рмk2;тч 88;еб105;ноккримдата; SOURCE hxxps://interfax.com.ua/news/interview/621967.html
Jkx Oil & Gas share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
JKX
Jkx Oil & ..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20201126 01:57:37