We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Petrel Resources Plc | LSE:PET | London | Ordinary Share | IE0001340177 | ORD EUR0.0125 (CDI) |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
-0.20 | -12.90% | 1.35 | 1.30 | 1.40 | 1.55 | 1.35 | 1.55 | 362,572 | 15:06:14 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Oil And Gas Field Expl Svcs | 0 | -311k | -0.0020 | -6.75 | 2.12M |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
19/7/2021 20:34 | "EYCP LLC, a lender registered in the US state of Delaware, and its Cayman-based agent SRT Capital SPC Ltd on November 19, 2019 " I could not find any evidence of a "hedge fund" onlne presence. Surely this "billionaire" would want to have knowledge of whom he was dealing with? Goldman sachs etc etc... But no, he's been scammed ? If this is the case , not a great thing to have on your cv. And if he's been scammed once? | fenners66 | |
19/7/2021 19:20 | And exile, here's the long answer to your burning question. I wouldn't want you thinking I was trying to ignore you now ;) ------------------- Firstly, from The Currency article May 2020: The affidavit outlined Fayad’s version of events and his investor group’s response to the letter they received from Petrel’s solicitors on January 7, seeking “a full and detailed explanation in respect of the sale of the sold shares in breach of the lock-in deed”. Fayad testified that the investors entered into a term sheet for the MLA [KD: Margin Lending Agreement] with EYCP LLC, a lender registered in the US state of Delaware, and its Cayman-based agent SRT Capital SPC Ltd on November 19, 2019 – two days before Petrel’s EGM approved the reverse takeover. This was updated on December 9 with “minor changes” to the MLA agreement. [KD: Note that the Lebanese banking crisis had just happened and the CP's funds were locked in...and still are]. Tamraz, Fayad and their co-investors were to borrow £3.15 million from EYCP and provide 37.3 million shares as security for the loan. These were the shares acquired by Tamraz, Fayad and Mehraik in August under the first phase of the deal, representing a 25 per cent stake in Petrel at that point. Crucially, Fayad insists that “the capital shares would not be at risk until monies were advanced under the MLA,” which he says never happened. On affidavit, Fayad acknowledged his group’s shortcomings when entering the loan agreement: “In order to save on the cost of entering the MLA, the MLA borrowers (including myself) did not take any legal advice, in any jurisdiction, on the contents of the MLA and instead relied upon the party broking the transaction (Oscar Olu-Williams) and representations made to us by the lender during the course of the negotiations.” Fayad told The Currency that he and his partners trusted Olu-Williams’s experience. “He is well-known on the market and has managed IPOs,” he said. Fayad added that the British broker introduced them to Bulent Toros, a Turkish national representing EYCP and SRT Capital. Unfamiliar with AIM market practices, by December 23, Fayad and his associates had placed the security in the custody of Deutsche Bank, which in turn outsourced the holding of the shares to Chase Nominees Ltd, a London unit of JP Morgan Chase. All parties present in court on Friday agreed that Chase Nominees, a defendant in the case because it had become the legal owner of the shares, had followed instructions and not committed any wrongdoing. “Neither myself nor the other investors were aware that pledging shares might constitute a breach of the lock-in deed as none of the investors are experienced investors in the AIM market and are unfamiliar with market practices of that market,” Fayad testified. “We assumed that it was only the sale of the shares on the market that was prohibited.” Fayad said that the borrowers then received a notice of default from their lender on January 3, stating that three clauses in the MLA had been breached: • The 30-day average trading volume in Petrel shares was not to fall below 75 per cent below that on a reference “day of exchange” set at the date of the MLA. Judging by the high trading volume recorded at the end of November around the time of the EGM, this clause set the bar high. By early January, EYCP notified the Tamraz group that volume had fallen too low and they were in default. “My understand of the reasoning for this is that over the Christmas period, trading levels reduce dramatically as a result of the holiday season,” Fayad said on affidavit. • EYCP also notified the investors that the shares were not freely tradeable without a volume restriction, unlike agreed under the MLA. “I consider that this is evidence that the lender was seeking to trade the shares prior to the notice of default,” Fayad testified. • The MLA also “provided that the shares were not subject to any lock-up or prior encumbrance,” and the lender cited the existence of the lock-in deed as another default trigger. Petrel alerted the stock exchange on January 8 at 7am that around four million locked-in shares had already been traded over a number of days. Fayad testified that his lender had started to sell the shares “immediately after sending the letter, possibly even before”. As soon as he found this out, he said he instructed Deutsche Bank to stop any further sales. “I, nor either of the other investors, gave, or had any intention to give, any instruction to dispose of any further shares in Petrel,” Fayad’s affidavit quotes from a letter sent to Petrel. Petrel’s barrister Gary McCarthy told the court that if what Fayad said was correct, “it appears that the lender has not advanced any money and is now demanding £1.5 million sterling for breach of agreement in circumstances where they haven’t paid any money on foot of it, and they have got the benefit of $770,000 worth of shares which they traded as a collateral.” --------------- Secondly from another poster on this forum back in Feb: "...has anyone considered that the problem of the shares ownership may require court action (not inside Eire but in the Cayman Islands or New York). If so that isn't going to be settled anytime soon. Google "SRT Capital SPC Ltd judgement" and you will find a similar instance in the past of a collateral loan where the parties couldn't agree, that one was heard in New York. SRT Capital have brought cases in the Cayman Islands as well, but not London or Eire as far as I can tell... ...Until I did research I thought it odd that the concert party would loan shares as collateral to borrow cash...but I find that using shares as collateral is quite common, it appears to be SRT Capital's business and they have been around a while..." ---------- My note: So, in summary, EYCP took the CP to court (in New York sometime in 2019) in breach of contract which EYCP had 'manufactured' to almost certainly fail. So, not only have the CP lost their shares, they are also being sued (I seem to recall for something lke $1.5m?). The CP are the victims. The US court case is ongoing and very, very slow. EYCP (and their agent SRT) have a longstanding track record of pulling similar stunts. There are, and have been, multiple court cases involving them (e.g. Morgan Stanley, Soleil Capital Ltd, Pious Capital Ltd, etc). It appears to be their 'modus operandi'. | kdickson | |
19/7/2021 18:57 | as for the Russian license? It never gets developed, outside events....what can you do eh... | lippe_mk2 | |
19/7/2021 16:44 | JJ, I'm not surprised you'd be cautious of Tamraz. To say he's had a chequered past is a huge understatement. I don't think there's anyone who wouldn't have doubts if they read his CV or read every article about him. This 'American Spectator ' article from May 1997 (24 years ago) gives great detail: Back to today though, given our situation where the Petrel board appear to have run out of options, I would say it's time to give Mr Tamraz a chance at recovering our losses. There's not much more to lose, so why not try a change from the last 20 years. Tamraz is incredibly influential and mixes in circles most business people couldn't even begin to imagine. Obviously David and John were willing to have him on board for these very strengths (see my previous post). Anyone who can hide things from the CIA must be pretty damn clever! I don't think it's fair to say all his companies are (or were) skint though. At his high level of corporate deal making in the business world, many billionnaire type businessmen simply do not keep high levels of liquid assets in their companies. Deals are often based on securing funds through various corporate financial lending instruments that most people wouldn't know about. But basically they borrow money rather than use their own liquid assets (i.e. cash). That's exactly why they are billionnaires. In relation to the Russian licences, I do know that Tamraz has access to a massive line of agreed credit (from longstanding business associates outside the CP) that makes the required $20million needed to develop them over the next 4 years, look like peanuts. Hence the offer of a free carry for Petrel. | kdickson | |
19/7/2021 12:55 | And due diligence was done before he got in here, You have to wonder ???? | elmfield | |
19/7/2021 12:51 | Further to my previous missive on the chequered past of Roger Tamraz, I bought the book by ex-cia operative Robert Bauer who had dealings with him. It's a fascinating read anyway, but the comments on Tamraz are illuminating. In essence, of all Roger's deals, the CIA could never find out where the money came from. All of his companies were skint but he was still in the midst of multi-million dollar proposals and deals. I think I would be a bit leery of a businessman where even the CIA don't know how or where he gets the dosh. Good luck all, I hope it all works out. | jungle jim | |
18/7/2021 21:36 | Nice one. I'll watch out for you and Sabine's then. Thanks! | kdickson | |
18/7/2021 21:30 | I will PM tomorrow kd | bountyfull | |
18/7/2021 21:04 | Thanks Sabine, that would be great. We are thinking of leaving a few days gap between sending the poll results to the Board (tomorrow) and then these individual stories later in the week as an additional follow up. That will double up the overall nessage and let it sink in with them over the weekend just before AGM. Remember everyone, this is your opportunity to "talk" to the Board and let them know your genuine thoughts by leaving them a message in this way (doesn't need to be a story, more of a heartfelt message). Especially as most people will not be able to attend the AGM in person. Just pm me the message/story you want them to hear, or post on here if happy to do so. By Wed night please. | kdickson | |
18/7/2021 20:18 | KD, I will pm you with my story. | sabine4 | |
18/7/2021 15:12 | If only they had lolz listened, Writing dodgy dave bleeding heart letters, whatever next ... | lippe | |
18/7/2021 12:09 | https://spongeshare. | steephill cove | |
18/7/2021 10:30 | Yes Pete, I've got your messages from before. Thanks :) | kdickson | |
18/7/2021 10:25 | f31 I can just imagine DH's comment on the letters much the same as the inane answers to our questions. Contempt. | palace pete | |
18/7/2021 10:18 | 1teemore - thanks! "to progress to a satisfactory conclusion to the many loyal holders" That is exactly the type of message that should reach the Board - over and over again. So I hope that you will join the accumulated list with that specific message. To All: It can be anonymous and without details if you feel that as a showstopper for you. The Board will know that the messages collected by KD or myself are genuine. To all who will join: Thanks! | f31 | |
18/7/2021 10:04 | Palace Pete. It was actually your story which clearly told the reality for ordinary shareholders, which triggered the idea to send this type of messages to the Board, as a background of why we are so desperate for them to accept the RNGG offer and hopefully return to 25p or even more, rather than falling back to the between 1 and 2 pence range from before Tamraz came into view. From this background, it would be logical for all co-signers of the earlier letter (which effectively held the same message) to add also their story to the accumulated list to be send to the Board. I hope all previous co-signers will make the effort and do this !! It would be great if indeed numerous messages would reach the Board to make them realize the reality of things, and so that it can convincingly be referred to at the AGM. | f31 | |
18/7/2021 09:53 | f31- Very good post/letter and a good summary of the history of many long term share holders. Hope that it is a wakeup call to get the current Board to progress to a satisfactory conclusion to the many loyal holders. | 1teemore |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions