ldlv
31 Aug 2015
Re: ASOG and ALAG follow interesting discussions here [link] join us on afrenlagalaction yahoo comOur last post responding to Tony (former ASOG committee member)Tony thanks for the suggestions. In regards your 00
4 post, while it is clear that a sale of 'the whole' as an ongoing basiswould be extremely unlikely, it would surely not be anywhere near asunlikely should the bondholders take a significant haircut &/or extendcoupon repayments & principle by a few years.As things stand, bondholders look likely to lose a significant proportion ofprinciple -Renaissance Capital have said as much as 94% is possible- sosurely it would be in their interests as well as shareholders' to pursuethis line ?The immediate issue is not the payment of the debt but to find short-termliquidity and in our view the numbers are substantially different fromyours. While the technical process explanations given at the meeting with Alix wereappreciated, -as was the time taken to meet, none of the attendees wereunder any illusion that we had received answers to our key questions but weappreciate the opportunity. Alixp seem to have very quickly come to very dull conclusions that don'tappear to be in the best interests of creditors, let alone shareholders. Itis very strange that just the parent company is in administration with noclear explanation of the circumstances leading up to the administration. Asyou know, Alan Lin who is still in place, was telling us a very differentstory until as recently as early July. We are just very surprised & disappointed with their one-track stance, andas they *are* the executioners, that is currently paramount in our opinion. Can you comment on that?We are keeping a communication line with Alix and we intend to fully exploreshareholders options in a constructive and respectful way. I hope everybodyunderstand our position.Surely if an offer for the whole were to provide *some* value tostakeholders -versus 6% via liquidation- that offer should become thepreferred route ? The alternative makes no sense whatsoever. Whats your takeon that Tony?having a constructive discussion all together we could at least FULLYunderstand what make an offer acceptable or not and what the BHs are readyto accept.
Kenj2
30 Aug 2015
Re: ASOG and ALAG IDLV,I understand the difference between ASOG and ALAG.The former was a shareholder pressure group who attempted (unsuccessfully) to persuade the board and bondholders to offer a better deal to existing shareholders.The latter is/was a group who sought to sue the directors through the courts for the deliberate or willfully negligent destruction of shareholder value.I did not join either, but I am aware that ASOG has closed following Afren entering administration. Perhaps you could tell us how ALAG is getting on, and reply to Smithsmith11's rather insulting views (below) on ALAG, which you were prominent in forming."To create a fake legal action team, to slow down & obstruct the process of shareholders taking their own genuine legal action, the group would reassure its members that theres lots going on behind the scenes, this fake legal action could then send out more conspiracies to a captive ordinance, for example posts from 'Wild Wolf' suggesting that these former directors have been made 'scape goats'... and that its the bond holders what dun it.""If you are seeking legal recourse for your loss it might the right time to create a genuine legal action group"
ldlv
30 Aug 2015
ASOG and ALAG I really hope people fully understand the difrent between ASOG and ALAG and stop mixing concepts.
Kenj2
28 Aug 2015
Re: Former Directors Possibly Embezzled Hund... Smithsmith11,This is your first post iii, and unless you have used another name you have said little or nothing on LSE either. So where have you been while the company was crashing? Why join the party now that it is all over? And why should we not believe that you are being paid to support Toby or Egbert?Most posters on this board would not accept that the actions of Osman and Shahid caused the company to collapse. While the actions of Osman and Shahid did indeed damage Afren, the directors who followed them are far more culpable for Afren's demise imo.It was not just ASOG, ALAG, Wild Wolf and small shareholders who opposed the proposed restructuring according to this fairly comprehensive report into Afren's collapse. Hedge fund SRM, Afren's largest shareholder was also strongly against.[link] SRM was implacably opposed to the restructuring, viewing it as an unjustified seizure of the company by the bondholders. Rather than default on its bonds and hence yield control to creditors, Afren should have conducted a rights issue, which would have enabled it to keep going and shareholders to have kept their stakes."
JRz
28 Aug 2015
Re: Former Directors Possibly Embezzled Hund... If you have any concerns, speak to FCA. E-mail [email protected]
smithsmith11
27 Aug 2015
Former Directors Possibly Embezzled Hundreds of Millions I believe that a large amount of postings on LSE, ADVFN, and possibly the occasionally one here over the last few months are created by a PR company or individual blogger who has been instructed and paid by or on behalf of Osman Shahenshah and or Shahid Ullah, this is to achieve the following; encourage shareholders to purchase shares, sway shareholder opinion, focus shareholder anger on the wrong people, create incorrect conspiracies, obstruct shareholder litigation and generally muddy the water with authorities to help them get away with the hundreds of millions they stole. The benefit of persuading private investors to buy shares thus transferring them away from institutional investors is that PI's are less likely to sell them at a loss and (may of) kept the price from collapsing (this is obviously bad news for them as it could potentially reopen the fraud investigation) In addition to this PI investors can also be influenced by fake posters on here and its easier to get them to believe (and then spread the) fake rumours to authorities, muddying the waters and diverting their anger thus helping to prevent a proper investigation into the stolen fundsTo divert the attention away from the true reason that the company collapsed (100s of millions embezzled by the above) and instead focus the shareholders anger on the recent directors (Toby hayward & Alan Linn) and bondholders, to spread the rumour that its been a long term conspiracy to transfer the company cheaply to bondholders and nothing to with the hundreds of millions that were stolen by these former directors. Its now clear that Bondholders have not profited from this situationTo create a fake legal action team, to slow down & obstruct the process of shareholders taking their own genuine legal action, the group would reassure its members that theres lots going on behind the scenes, this fake legal action could then send out more conspiracies to a captive ordinance, for example posts from 'Wild Wolf' suggesting that these former directors have been made 'scape goats'... and that its the bond holders what dun it..If the correct pressure was put on authorities then a full audit of the accounts from last few years could be performed and it may reveal that these directors authorised the purchase of worthless land from their friends in Kurdistan and other countries and pocketed 100s of millions in the process, if this took place the directors may face criminal action and may be forced to pay back these sums, these could be used to pay back creditors including bondholders and even shareholders. On the other hand If these directors can spread enough fake online rumours about bondholder conspiracies and can convince enough shareholders to contact the press, the SFO and FCA and confuse them with so much incorrect information these institutions would become tired of hearing about another afren conspiracy and /or might spend any allocated budget and energy on nonsense theories and fake leads long before they were on the right trail.'Wild wolf' is a great example, he talks about a long term conspiracy going back many years by the bondholders to oust these 'innocent' directors in an attempt for the current directors to hand the bondholder the company cheaply. Bondholders just want their money back, with the company now in administration i think this is becoming clearer. He says these directors were made scape goats for the failure of Afren. He writes that paying yourself undisclosed secret payments via another company is just standard stuff and was used as an excuse to get rid of the directors. His posts are regular sent to all members of fake shareholder legal 'action' group reiterating the fake rumour. There are many other posters who to talk about bondholder / director conspiracies who post hundreds of posts every month and some claim to not be invested in afren, why are they here then? Ask your self why dozens of posters on LSE over the last few months have e
zahids28
21 Aug 2015
New News! Oriental Energy appears to have made a claim on the Ebok Field. It looks like the entire Nigerian operation could be handed over to Oriental energy and by the end of this month! That is almost probably more than 80% of Afren's current production. What is in question now, is what will happen to EAX and the Kurdistan assets. remember that Lion Trust still has a claim on EAx which is based in Madagascar which could mean that it may be possible that EAX is handed over to them? In compensation for the $10m claim that are trying to make on EAX. I am not sure what Kurdistan could be worth? Any other asset which Afren have is just Exploration rights and probably not hold much value.
fifokid
21 Aug 2015
Re: Shareholders should sue Afren Of course they should be sued for lack of disclosure. They knew of the H2S issues in Kurdistan for years and that it would be a non performing asset they would have to carry.Then came the craftily schemed management bailout where Osman can get off the hook for his incompetence and where the replacement management pardons him and in the process plays stupid to the pressing situation at Afren as a result leaving no one accountable.To me it looks like their plan has been executed perfectly.
oilinvestor85
19 Aug 2015
Re: Shareholders should sue Afren "Time for an inquiry into AIM and the financial PR firms that peddle misinformation. I smell a new PPI scandal of which Afren is an ugly tip of the rotting iceberg."---------- ---------- -----GrillerYou are right about AIM! The problem is Afren inst part of AIM! Believe it or not, 12 months ago this was one of the bigger companies in the FTSE 250..... Which makes this whole episode more shocking !!!
zahids28
19 Aug 2015
Why Has it taken AFR 2 years to finally decide all of a sudden that Kurdistan is not drillable having had it back in 2013?
zahids28
19 Aug 2015
Maybe a Deal has been reached with Gunvor? If they decided not to sell they would probably have said it straight away, so they must definetly be discussing something?
zahids28
19 Aug 2015
Sorry considering selling ...
zahids28
19 Aug 2015
It appears AFR were considering Kurdistan assets way back in Feb 13!
tobytoby
19 Aug 2015
Gunvor bid deadline Has anyone heard anything wrt Gunvor's Monday gone bid deadline?
