[ADVERT]
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
  0.00 0.0% 1.725 1.70 1.75 1.725 1.70 1.70 750,000 08:33:40
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 0.0 -0.4 -0.3 - 3

Petrel Resources Share Discussion Threads

Showing 35351 to 35368 of 35450 messages
Chat Pages: 1418  1417  1416  1415  1414  1413  1412  1411  1410  1409  1408  1407  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
15/10/2021
14:47
I'm out of pet at the moment.I suspect there will be a period where we have a decent rise..This company has two (at least)from memory,significant bagging events from 3p to twenty.There is always money to me made its just timing.Whether it's a sustained rise is anyone's guess and obviously depends how good the news is but I will hopefully be able to suss out when it's coming.
bronislav
15/10/2021
14:39
I believe Fayad would not have told lies when presenting a sworn affidavit within an Irish court. Petrel's solicitor seemed to understand what had happened too. Regardless of how naive, etc the CP were (for the reasons given), it is a fact that EYCP have been involved in many similar cases. I'm following the US court case updates so will report on any meaningful news.
kdickson
15/10/2021
12:47
Kenneth Dougal Chairman Elect is busy attempting to backtrack that libellous posting right now ... Aye and Lolz.
lippe
15/10/2021
12:21
Everyone's entitled to their theories. That's what these boards are here for. We'll probably never know the exact facts but it's effectively water under the bridge and I believe we are now reliant on Petrel getting something without Netoil. FWIW, here's a repost from a few months ago about the EYCP/SRT fiasco: ------------------- Post 19617 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
15/10/2021
11:36
"It's the 'modus operandi' of EYCP to drag out court cases with the clients they've defrauded. " That's a massive assumption, I have my own speculation too: The Concert party signed away all their rights and transferred ownership of their stock (stock which they were NOT allowed to transfer ownership of or sell) to EYCP for some ulterior motive - in my view short selling knowing full well they only had to transfer a nominal USD amount to cover their next contribution and get more stock at discount to market. Remember when this was, it's very important - not when they got the shares but at the absolute market peak price - that speaks volumes. Then they got caught out, and remember its only after repeated demands from the company that they even bothered owning up to the fact that they relinquished control of locked shares - like it was a 'surprise' where the sales volume was coming from. The reason they've been unable to get shares back, I'd hazard a guess, is because they have no single leg to stand on, they never did - they short sold stock which was discount priced anyway - to further fund more discounted shares. Honestly the next statement will be that the concert have disposed of all their shares (at a profit too), they walk away, having 'smoke and mirrors for assets' throughout the whole charade. Yeah, I could be wrong, but when it smells like BS, 99% of the time it is.
dusseldorf
15/10/2021
10:06
It's the 'modus operandi' of EYCP to drag out court cases with the clients they've defrauded. Anyhow, the case is virtually irrelevant to us now as Petrel are pursuing things without Netoil as far as I know.
kdickson
15/10/2021
09:26
How long is this bloody court case going to go on for?!
blakieboy7
14/10/2021
09:48
I don't think we know what the CP's intentions really are. Probably depends on the outcome of the US court case against them by EYCP.
kdickson
14/10/2021
09:20
500k sell presumably from yesterday. Are we still waiting for concert party to sell their remaining balances?
dusseldorf
12/10/2021
12:57
Kenneth's got TMD, and it's still lolz limp ...
lippe
12/10/2021
08:19
This needs lolz fluffing kenneth to keep it up. Heads high, kill them with the no, just make the share price know you nah blow ...
lippe
11/10/2021
21:16
Looks like Al-Sadr's shi'ite party has won again increasing their vote from 54 in 2018 to 73 this time. This is the same party that DH was happy about winning in 2018, saying in the AR of that year "Pro-business parties won the 2018 elections". Hopefully it won't take weeks/months to agree and form the new coalition government.
kdickson
11/10/2021
10:20
It's getting desperate the multi avatar Dougal is reduced to talking to himself ... Aye Lolz and what's the frequency Kenneth ?
lippe
11/10/2021
07:46
Looking far from dead to me
malc5
10/10/2021
21:27
Diddy, maybe you should sell up and get into XTR (Xtra large Troll Rubbish bin) Lolz, bantz, Aye! ;)
kdickson
10/10/2021
11:14
Iraq general election today, could be the catalyst for our £ 10 party, Aye !
bit coin
07/10/2021
14:50
The waste paper basket overfloweth with beaks, feet and formed oirish stools ..
lippe
07/10/2021
11:07
If Carlsberg did oil partners ....
ajj2003
Chat Pages: 1418  1417  1416  1415  1414  1413  1412  1411  1410  1409  1408  1407  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
PET
Petrel Res..
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:20211130 16:31:40