Stratocastor79
16 Mar 2018
Tea & sympathy Crikey, this discussion should be wrapped up by now. If you see.Rupert in the street will it be a jamie carragher moment fornyou. Peesonalky I wouldnt waste it.
dont want a nickname
13 Mar 2018
Re: OGA Letter lest we forget...The Duty of CareEach publicly traded company’s Board of Directors has a duty of care to its shareholders. That means that in making business decisions the Board must exercise reasonable care in the decisions that it makes for the company. Reasonable care has two elements. First, the Board must be acting in good faith for the benefit of the company. They must believe that the actions they are taking are in the company’s best interest. Second, they must believe that the actions are in the best interest of the company based on a reasonable investigation of the options available. In other words, they must carefully consider the available options within the time and financial constraints presented before they make a decision or take a particular action on behalf of the company.The Duty of LoyaltyIn addition to the duty of care, the Board of Directors owes a duty of loyalty to company shareholders. That means that the Board of Directors must be loyal to the company and its shareholders and act in their best interest. The Board and its individual members may not act in their own best interest or engage in self-dealing while making decisions or taking actions on behalf of the company. The duty of loyalty is sometimes known as the business judgment rule because the Board is required to make its judgments in the best interest of the business.Shareholders must remember, however, that even if the Board of Directors strictly adheres to both of its fiduciary duties of care and loyalty, business decisions may still be made that hurt that company. That is because many business decisions are inherently risky. The courts recognize this risk and do not engage in the business of second guessing business decisions that were carefully made in what was honestly believed to be the company’s best interest. That said Boards of Directors are in unique positions of trust. They must, therefore, carefully exercise their duties of care and loyalty in their furtherance of their business goals. Then the shareholders, the Board members and the business will be pr
GC Trader
08 Mar 2018
Re: OGA Letter 'hapless decisions made by a man hopelessly out of his depth'yep and that tends to happen in this industry when you put a bean counter that has delusions of grandeur way above their actual capabilities in charge...IMHO twas a sad day indeed when Smithy left the croft for he was ready to forego the operatorship title deeds in exchange for actual factual development...anyway...nuff said on matter...
changeling
08 Mar 2018
Re: OGA Letter GCWhatever I still find it interesting purely in the sense of working out (for my own satisfaction) just how many wrong turns Xcite made and whether they were all merely hapless decisions by a man hopelessly out of his depth and unable to understand his own limitations.The experience has helped me with investments post Xcite. You certainly take a long hard look at the CEO and his CV - just hoping it hasn't been gilded/doctored.It's also been an education in just how low some of these AIM co's will stoop and just what kind of financial partners they will get into bed with just to keep the plates spinning whilst they squirrel it away.There is some real rubbish out there but no need at all for any of us to invest in it
GC Trader
08 Mar 2018
Re: OGA Letter ''noting that the matters surrounding Xcites liquidation remain contentious''contentious... says who...?here's a simple and undeniable fact...Xcite borrowed (a lot of) money they couldn't repay on or before the agreed due date...now pray tell me (from a legal perspective of 'wrongdoing and/or skulduggery' - as appears to be the shareholders course of action) what is so 'contentious' about that...?I'll tell ya... NONE...!!!ergo... the only heated, controversial and argumentative debate (befitting of 'contentious' behaviour) going on is amongst a core group of vexed shareholders who simply cannot accept their losses and move on...oh and BTW... most of the disgruntled shareholders that appear to be still calling for legal or ministerial action, didn't bankroll the company or provide funds towards development and production... they merely bought shares on the open market in the hope the SP would rise so they could sell those shares again at a profit and as we all know in the end, they couldn't and it didn't... as the old saying goes...some you win and some you lose...folks need to get over it and go and get their life back...
changeling
08 Mar 2018
OGA Letter Thanks to Beltron on LSE- Bought this across simply because the more you read it the odder it looks.We have considered your request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) and, where relevant, the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 (EIRs). Following a search of the Oil and Gas Authorities (OGA£s) records, we have found no record of a meeting taking place on 16 September 2016, involving the OGA and Xcite. However, on the 8th September 2016, a meeting between the OGA, Xcite and third parties took place. On 24 May 2017 the OGA received and responded (on 27 July) to a request for the notes of the meeting on 8 September 2016. In its response to that request, the note Readout of meeting between OGA, DIT, Redacted and Xcite: Thursday 8 September 2016 £Redacted is a Redacted firm that was established in the Redacted. They currently invest in Redacted in Redacted and Redacted; they have investment in Redacted in the UK; and they own the Redacted associated with the Redacted in Redacted. There is no debt or fees associated with their investment and their business model is to work with high quality firms. As there is no debt, there is no default risk. They look to work with an investment grade company for the coupon and for Xcite they have selected Redacted to manage this. They explained that they provide prefunding to try to mitigate any call on the guarantor. They seek to have a fast and efficient process to enable completion.£ 4. While no meeting was held on 8 September 2016 between the £OGA, Xcite Energy LTD's (XEL) Board of Directors and XEL's proposed project guarantor£, we can confirm that a meeting between Xcite, the Department for International Trade (DIT), a company whose details are being withheld (further details as to the reasons this information is being withheld is set out below), and the OGA took place on 8 September 2016 at the OGA£s London office. A copy of the note from that meeting is attached to this response at Annex 1 (the Note). 5. Some of the information contained in the Note has been redacted. While the OGA tries to be as transparent as possible, and our general approach is to disclose as much information as we are able, there are at times reasons and circumstances in which the OGA cannot disclose information requested. 6. The OGA considers that the redacted information from the Note is exempt from disclosure pursuant to Sections 36(2), 41(1), 43(2) FOIA and Regulations 12(5)(d) and (e) EIR. A detailed explanation of the reliance on each of the exemptions is set out below. Section 36(2) £ Prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs 7. The OGA£s qualified person considers that disclosure of the redacted information (a) would likely inhibit the free and frank exchange of views for the purposes of deliberation (Section 36(2)(b)(ii) FOIA) and/or (b) would otherwise prejudice or would be likely to otherwise prejudice the effective conduct of public affairs (Section 36(2)(c) FOIA). 8. The meeting of 8 September 2016 was intended as a way for those attending to have a safe space to have discussions related to the funding of projects. 9. One of the functions of the OGA, as the regulator of the oil and gas industry in the UK, is to facilitate and take part in discussions on a range of matters (which may, from time to time include discussions on sensitive matters such as the topic of the meeting) in order to achieve outcomes in the best interests of the UK Continental Shelf and Industry. 10. It is necessary and appropriate for those discussions to be conducted in a safe space so that the best decisions can be reached without fear of subsequent disclosure or external interference. 11. In the discharge of such statutory functions, companies in the oil and gas industry and other stakeholders (e.g. UK and International governments) provide the OGA with wide ranging and often commercially and politically sensitive information. The OGA has no statut
San Jaime
07 Mar 2018
Re: Some news Blue City . Got the email regarding possible XEL investigation action. My reply:"Sounds good to do a bit of digging to expose this North Sea Bubble investment scam by the XEL BoD..Please count me in to donate to any funding request."I hope other investors who have suffered a loss here are also willing to help if this investigation goes ahead....
changeling
07 Mar 2018
Anyone read the posts on LSE ref. OGA These paragraphs caught my attention22. As mentioned, the said meeting was held to discuss the possibility of the Company investing in Xcite�s Bentley field. The OGA considers that should the fact that such an investment was considered, this could damage the reputation of the Company. 23. In addition, disclosure of the Company�s identity may weaken its position in a competitive environment by releasing market sensitive information, information which would be useful to its competitors and which could be used by its competitors to undermine investor confidence in the Company. How does it potentially damage a company's reputation if they consider an investment? It doesn't unless something happened like a rejection of their suitability by some one at the meeting?Bearing in mind Rupert Cole's previous ideas of who would make a good bedfellow I'm wondering just who he rocked up with?
krazzy
02 Mar 2018
IS RC into REAL ESTATE [link] would imagine after releasing us of our money he can afford to do this.
San Jaime
01 Mar 2018
The great deluded! Just saw this post on UKOG BB posted by hopetown....-----Sunday Times reported that shareholders have turned against small oil companies that seem to be run for the benefit of executives. The piece makes for astonishing reading. Advisory firm Hannon Westwood noted that 55 companies in London’s oil and gas industry had no reserves on their books as of last year. “In other words, they neither produce oil nor plan to. They simply exist. And write cheques,” said the publication. It quoted an unnamed pension fund manager as saying that “there is a casual disregard for shareholders in the oil industry”. Oil companies make up 15% of the FTSE All-Share index, noted the report. However, “an unnerving proportion of the 130 or so listed explorers and producers could be classified as what critics call ‘lifestyleR17; companies”. In other words, “groups of mates who managed to raise enough cash to pay themselves well, but not much more”. The newspaper went as far as to say: “Chief executives taking home big wads of cash while investors get nothing is endemic in London’s oil and gas industry.” Of the examples that abound, the report highlighted one case study: San Leon Energy. Its chairman, 55-year-old former stockbroker Oisin Fanning took home a whopping £3.2m (about R59m) over four years. The company, on the other hand, has racked up almost double that figure in losses, with its share price plunging nearly 90%. The trend highlights that shareholders have no control over the use of the money they invest in an oil or exploration company, pointed out Ian Norbury, of Hannon Westwood. The San Leon board has reportedly agreed to change Fanning’s pay so that he receives 80% of it in cash rather than shares. Still, I wouldn’t be in a hurry to invest my hard-earned foreign currency allowance in the next oil company that lists in London. I’d also think twice about a FTSE All-Share tracker, given the heavy dose of these companies in that index. A culture of greed seems pretty entrenched among oil company managers, putting other sectors in the shade.-----Food for thought ??
DVS 1
23 Feb 2018
Re: Shorts Hi, Easy Brent,I would be interested to know which brokers you are aware of that settled the Xcite shorts so early.I am with Core Spreads and they appear to be disinterested in closing the position.This also does not inspire confidence with this Company regarding another short that went bust, I had a £10K short position on Carillion with a 25% margin, they have now demanded the full 100% margin be paid, so, bearing in mind I won the bet, I have had to pay them around another £7K and the Lord only knows when they will be paying out on that one.I would be interested to know, from anyone in a similar position with other spread betting firms, if they are treated in the same way. Many thanks,
Kildonan01
23 Feb 2018
My Share Holding Company a bit behind!!! Just received a letter this more from my share holding company, a bank, informing me, "Whilst the liquidation is still in progress, we've amended the price of the stock to zero, this is to ensure that it is reflected accurately, (note the word!!!) within the market"Just shows how "accurately", they are up to date!!!
real life
23 Feb 2018
Re: Some news Hi my name-waiswain. email- [email protected] be interest and information form the action group. please keep me info.
EasyBrent
22 Feb 2018
Re: Shorts Basically, all brokers cleared the shorts 1-2 months after the bankruptcy process was completed 30 Jun 2017.
Blue City
22 Feb 2018
Some news I haven’t posted on here for a while but there has been a development which you may find of interest.Some of you will know I have been hosting an xcite action group [email protected] I have recently approached a company who may be interested in looking into the actions of the various parties to this debacle. They are a professional outfit and from my initial conversation already have a grasp of the issues involved. These people can dig in places we can’t.There will be a requirement for funds, which some of those who have written to me seem happy to put forward. I hope to have some idea of initial costs soon. I will be writing to all of those who have been in touch with me at the outlook address some time next week. I will be away for a few days but will be back on Tuesday.
