XCITE ENERGY

SFO - lol.

Don't undersell yourself - you should try MI5 or the CIA.

How can you claim misleading statements? You've been complaining for the last few years that no one can understand them so how can they mislead? The one a couple of weeks ago was clear - it said you will be screwed and it was hardly misleading given today's announcement.

Presumably the $10million we be secured by the asset - without that there is probably no way for the company to continue as it is out of cash and would certainly have a licence extension declined. That money seems pretty secure, no doubt comes with some great charges and maybe some BHs maintain a holding and try and ride out the downturn.

Beat up Investor

Don't take out a contract on him. If I bump into him I'll do the lying cheating piece of carp for nothing. In addition I guarantee to make it a lot more painful for him than a contract job.
You reading this Rupert ? YOU'RE LIVING ON BORROWED TIME.

F22

The non execs are there to question the running of the Company so I'd shut the f up if I were you.

Still it seems some people aren't happy with the level of losses so far and are talking about throwing more money away on pointless legal action.
........................

Nice to see you are so worried about us Spike legal route is looking good and the SFO ,considering the misleading statements from this BoD over the past couple of years Now just why would anyone want to give this BoD $10million. for what do the BH`s think this is some red hot team, don`t make me laugh ,so what`s the $10million really for?

It certainly utterly stinks that the directors may continue to draw salaries from the company if the restructuring goes ahead.

However it would take a very brave director to recommend putting a company into receivership and taking the risk of a liquidation process, rather than restructuring and salvaging something for shareholders - however small that may be - and allowing for potential future gains. That would likely leave them far more exposed to subsequent legal action should liquidation turn nothing to shareholders.

Using $2.5bn as any sort of valuation proxy is a joke though - that all assumes financing, project sanction, successful project execution etc etc and relies on $1bn of committed upfront spend. Its currently just a patch of sea without even sanction. Its only worth what someone is prepared to pay and given XEL has effectively been distressed for the last year, why would anyone bid anymore than they need to and who are the players out there that would get a bidding war going to force the price up - lack of appetite for CAPEX and cash preservation is the issue. Enquest couldn't give away a slice of Kraken, a project near completion and cashflow, even when they waived a significant amount of the CAPEX committed.

If its worth more than the bonds, why have their not been funders knocking at XELs door to refinance the bond and pick up an easy 20% coupon per year knowing they have an asset they can just repossess?

Still it seems some people aren't happy with the level of losses so far and are talking about throwing more money away on pointless legal action.

Question is will there be enough left to vote no !

10M shares sold today I make that around 80M sold since the rns 2 weeks ago

Who bought them ? BH's or a whole new lot of people who think after the deal is completed these will double from here .Nobody owning over 12M shares or 4% !

A suspension would have stopped the BH's buying untl the deal was formally announced so what they have done is make a no vote virtually impossible and that cant be right or democratic.

Its a con plain and simple !

I would like to know RC's view on what he thinks is 7M shares are worth and why just as a shareholder he thinks this is a good deal .

Lets pitch it on Dragons Den !

Rupert I want $1B for 40% of the company and 257M bls of oil

Dragons wele offer you $145M but we want 98.5%

Rupert give me an extra $10m to pay my wages and deal done !

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/166545/Current-Xcite-shareholders-will-own-just-1.5%2525-of-Bentley-field-after-restructuring-166545.html?utm_source=Sign-Up.to&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=7163-357300-Proactivity+-+27%2F09%2F2016

F22 of course you're right, we are all adults and chose to trust and empower the BoD to do right by us. However, when shareholders are not complicit or privy to the boardroom decisions then they can only assume responsibility for their own personal investment decision. It is the BoD that has responsibility, in law, to protect all shareholders' interests. These fundamental business statutes are there to protect honest investors from malpractice and fraud. It should be how the system works.

Suggesting that shareholders should simply trust in the integrity and strength of the BoD's latest CV and successful business decision is a factor, and a big one, but not the whole story. There are many examples of strong businesses that have questionable characters at the helm, but that the underlying business model is sound - so they have a propensity to succeed. If the laws are ignored or bent to benefit their own position, at the expense of shareholders, then this is a serious criminal matter - and they should be pursued in the courts. Having this legal protection for shareholders should be enough. The problem is that Directors think that they can now get away with it, raise a phoenix from the ashes, and think that the letter of the law is on their side. The sad thing is that personal integrity is no longer enough of a backstop and I hope in this case the law will catch up with the Directors that break the bond of trust. Shareholders are now positively conditioned to accept that we should simply go silent into the night, learn from the experience and move on. It is, of course, not right.

You're logic and reasoning is of course sound and any investment is a risky prospect and we should all go into it with our eyes open. Mine certainly have been when looking back at the last few years of mis-information and falsehoods. I think that you also have a good point that shareholders accept lacklustre progress when clearly there is increased concern when there appears to be little progress. Sometimes being too invested is a dangerous thing also it is up to each adult involved to weigh up the risks and learn from their mistakes but also stand up for injustice when they have a chance to make a difference. Whether we will in this instance remains to be seen - but we can but hope.

Wag

Fortunatly not in now but have had losses, I did post about shareholders getting together and putting the company up for sale, alas no support

How a company can move a share from over four pounds to 1p is yet another aim scandal. AIM us compelety discredited as far as I am concerned and won't touch it with a barge pole now a days.

Time for you all to get to get together like Range which is now on the up

Sad day today how it can be called Xcite when it's caused so much misery.
Karma will sort Mr Cole out, I do believe all the hurt you cause comes back to you at the end of your life and there is a lot of hurt out there today

It will not make a difference to the overall outcome as few will vote in reality, but with share holdings worth a pittance there really is nothing to lose, and only a protest vote to gain

Sorry kids, you will have to work a bit longer to pay off the students loans.....

BBC Radio 4 tonight

the lottery that is AIM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07wby0z


Little Brother's Big Secrets
File on 4
Listen in pop-out player

Valued at £80 billion, the UK's junior stock market is hyped as the most successful growth market in the world.

Government incentives - including stamp duty and inheritance tax breaks - mean that more ordinary UK investors are opting for the Alternative Investment Market (AIM).

Set up in 1995 to allow smaller companies to raise funds, AIM is a less-regulated alternative to its big brother, the main London Stock Exchange.

But it is no stranger to controversy.

Once labelled a "casino" by a senior US regulator due to its lax regulation, the market has been hit by a series of recent high profile scandals.

File on Four asks if this light-touch regulation poses a hidden risk for shareholders and if unscrupulous businesses are exploiting AIM to rip off ordinary British investors

Eagle great post but what sort of influence could we have here on a vote and I just wonder what sort of numbers would be needed ? Can anyone advise ?
Are the likes and of the junior oil fund still invested and what other large shareholders could possibly be interested in presuing the BOD !
Is it worth a tick up vote if interested in an action group and also some communication channels need setting up quickly to get organised against these crooks !

SFO sounds like a particularly good idea Eagle51 I think we should make enquiries in that direction.

Csz.... It appears your insistence that Tom Cross was involved is now coming to reality.... It was total BS..... so please don't think you are exempt from being guilty of your position on this bulletin board. One would assume you are no better than the poster Easybrent the way you have played people on this bulletin board with your inappropriate bullcaca about Tom Cross saving the day.

Regards

m45

.......that today's RNS contained a limited number of facts and rather more statements and opinions - all those of directors I believe stand to gain significantly by proceeding in the way they have told us today they intend to, this supposedly being in our best interests. It is practically impossible to imagine they are or even might be. It is also impossible to believe that, if what the directors are telling us is true, the bondholders (who are apparently willing to put up another $10m as working capital) wouldn't look in fright at any threat by XEL's "negotiator/s-in- chief" to walk away and let the BHs do as they see fit: ie appoint a receiver - who we're told our BoD has been advised wouldn't be likely to raise enough to settle the debt.

Trouble is, we haven't been told who's advised them on this, on what basis the advice has been given - or indeed anything else it is fundamental we know before deciding if our interest are best served by listening to advice from people (ie XEL's BoD) who might stand to benefit by the company continuing as a going concern as it continues to look for a guarantor. There is no update on talks that were apparently encouraging two or three months ago (when I believe there were said to be a number of interested parties - have they all gone away, or are the BHS/XEL's BoD waiting for us to go away?

XEL's directors 'big up' the threat of enforcement by the BHs as if it's a snarling dog that must be avoided at all costs. In fact the BHs' only right on default is to appoint a receiver, whose conduct is defined in law and whose principal responsibility would be to sell charged assets (basically The Bentley Field) in order to get the secured lenders their money back, together with any unpaid interest - or as much of it as possible. A receiver acts independently of the appointing party and his conduct cannot be influenced by the rights of the charge holder alone - he has a common law responsibility to the beneficial owners of the charged asset/s not to act in a way that is unfairly prejudicial to their interests.

Creditors with rights ahead of the BHs (there are practically no other creditors here) would also have to be settled out of realisations, as well as the receiver's fees for carrying out his work. Any monies remaining after the above had been settled would be returned to what would probably be a liquidator of the company to distribute equitably in accordance with applicable insolvency rules (presumably as laid down in BVI company law - likely to be similar to UK).

In the latter circumstances (which the vast majority of shareholders would be likely to prefer despite the BoD's 'emperor's clothes' pretences, the directors interests truly would be aligned with our own.

Sue the bastrads. 1.5% is a joke and they must know it. They're relying on their calculating behaviour in advance of a rigged meeting to win the day. The SFO should imo be involved, so blatant is this whole farce. Until told precisely what the directors' role will be after the restructuring, together with any incentives/inducements they are likely to (or have) receive/d, I will continue to believe their independence is badly compromised. And until they tell me who gave them the advice that Bentley (267MMstb in the NS, certified by TRACS based on any amount of due diligence carried out to date - one lot by the OGA itself - said to have a going concern NPV10 of $2.5bn wouldn't fetch more than 60 cents a barrel) I'll continue to believe the only way to establish the fair value of Bentley is to sell it in an open sale without the encumbrance of a BoD not fit for purpose and a plan that doesn't work. It is impossible to say how much it might fetch if more than one party were to become interested.

If this one is allowed to get through, what would it it say of the competence/integrity of the OGA?

Roughly what I'd have expected as a matter of fact.

Collective action is needed. Not sure what remedies might be open t

Let's have him done in ! F@*k him the bent c@%t !

Yes i so if it`s a better deal for them its a worse one for us.t`s a serious comment Coles job as CEO is to put the interests of XEL shareholders before those of the bond holders

"So therefor the D4E is a better deal for the BH`s than the current stockholders."

Is this a serious comment? Do you understand anything about capital hierarchy? The bond holders are entitled to be repaid everything before shareholders get anything. Of course any restructuring is better for BHs.

The BH's get to call the shots - they hold every card and have done since XEL failed to repay on due date. They make their own assessment and make their offer based on that. Now shareholders get the chance to say yes or no, with no likely leading to total wipeout rather than almost total wipeout.

Cole I hope that one day soon I come across your path , because what I say now , unlike yourself will be the truth and that is ,it will be equally as painfull for you.

The people who are supposed to hold the directors to account is... THE SHAREHOLDERS.

The shareholders of Xcite have fundamentally failed in this duty. Shareholder too often raced out to exaggerate the mediocre results of the company and defend the lacklustre progress of the executives.

Who were you trying to kid? Because the only people you have fooled is yourselves.

This team is weak and the asset is a big ugly cowplop of an oilfield.

Next time, don't waste your efforts defending apathetic executives, next time scrutinise your exec team. If they aren't up to the task then stop re-electing them. Write letters to the company secretary, write letters to the board of directors. Get heard. Don't go onto the internet to mollycoddle them from people with legitimate concerns.

It's pathetic and you deserve the losses from aligning with these people in this way. You're all adults and you're playing with real money. The buck stops with you.

Rupert Cole has told us the industry would value Bentley, he was`nt worried about the SP, now all of a sudden he has no faith in the industry valuation.
This man is not to be trusted .
OK Rupert you told us industry would value us, never mind saving your own miserable hide with D4E, put Bentley up for sale right now , or hand it straight over to the bond holder to sell I`ll take my chances,
You`ve sold your soul to save yourself you know the long term shareholders would have slung you out for recommending this route

I believe the one month extension is because the PI's have not capitulated as they thought we would and they do not have sufficient shares to walk over us. Carry on being strong and at least we get to take them down. Not worth selling out now anyway. I wouldnt be surprised if a bounce was manufactured to entice enough of us to sell, Bent all the way !

More front than Southend Pier. I asked Rupert directly in June who wrote the RNSs. I complained that whoever wrote them had perfected the art of ambiguity to the highest level. He disagreed and thought they were reasonably clear. He said they write them and the lawyers check.

So in this case we can reasonably attribute this to the executives of Xcite. One man in particular has 7,000,000 reasons for slipping this in.

" The directors understand that should shareholders not support the Proposed Restructuring at the Shareholder EGM, the Bondholders intend to pursue enforcement action against the Company. On the basis of advice received by the Company and the directors, the directors believe that such enforcement action is unlikely to result in the return of any value to the Company's existing shareholders."

There is also the expectation that he will continue to run the show. I'm no lawyer but the conflict of interest here and the glib way they expect us to roll over suggests that it is business as usual until the hole-in-the-wall runs out of money. I hope that people treat this RNS with the disdain that the writers have for the shareholders.

Of course nothing will happen but it made me feel better.Perhaps you can all send your own Email to

oga.correspondence@oga.gsi.gov.uk

So therefor the D4E is a better deal for the BH`s than the current stockholders.
The deal the BH`s undertook was a loan with Bentley as security.There was no debt for equity involved , therefor we give them Bently and thats the end,we lose Bently they take their chances.
By the way who assesses what the enterprise value is? Are you telling us that Bently is not worth 50 cents barrel?
We still have the company , get rid of the BoD and start again sounds like a better deal , Cole et al are more concerned about the bondholders than their own shareholders
?

Dear Sir
I am sure you are aware of what has happened to XEL.
Thousands of share holders have been lied to over the last few years and it does not reflect well on the OGA as it appears you have done nothing to facilitate the development of the Bentley field.
We are now left with nothing. However the directors plan to continue. This scandal will be revealed into the public domain and hopefully the directors will end up in prison, where they belong.
I suggest you think seriously about setting up a compensation scheme for the recent shareholders who were given no option but to sell up for a pittance this week.
Yours faithfully

"As a matter of fact I do what else were they going to base it on when taking equity for debt"

Their assessment of the value of the underlying asset against the enterprise value.

For the last 3 months the debt has made up at least 80% of the enterprise value with equity at most 20% and generally less. You are making daft calculation only looking at the market cap based on the SP, ignoring the fact those fluctuations are far less significant to overall enterprise value.

It's clear they don't value the asset anywhere near the debt, so the marginal value of equity on the total EV is utterly irrelevant. By offering a token d4e they give an option of avoiding a receivership process which probably ends up worse than getting shares they can dump for cash.

The BHs will take a big hit on this hence shareholders are taking a big hit.

well the jokes on him since he took everything we own

I wonder how Henderson and Junior Oil Trust and Cavendish etc will vote , from what I can work out Cavendish's £10m investment (minimum) is now worth £100k unless they sold some

you sound a tad upset Spike , whatever is the matter,

"Do you honestly think the bondholders gave a stuff about the prevailing share price last week or even in the last month when deciding their negotiating position? "

As a matter of fact I do what else were they going to base it on when taking equity for debt.

I think any shareholders left will have to vote no. They trying to get another 10 million to milk the cow for wages for another while. They deserve nothing as we have been seriously shafted here, I will be glad to lose what is left in order to keep one more penny from these criminals.

Or we can it Mugged by Xsh!t*..good point on the Slander thing...he might want more money out of us...

mugged by Rupert cole sounds good and not slanderous since its true

Shall we call it Mugged by Rupert Cole or Mugged by Xcite....I am serious here.

Certainly better than my email I've now deleted with was a series of swear words with Rupert Cole embedded within it and a few verbs ;-)

Sick of the name Rupert Cole and the worse titled company in the world, Xcite, the most unappropriate company name ever. , glad when I don't hear of this useless old wonky neck f*-cker anymore.

I back and will fund/support any legal action against them.

CB

Upanchors - you are laughably out of your depth.

Do you honestly think the bondholders gave a stuff about the prevailing share price last week or even in the last month when deciding their negotiating position?

You still don't get that apart from to the dreamers on here it is patently obvious that Bentley is not worth the value of the debt in the current buyers market. The bondholders know this which is why they are taking all the suits bar a small amount to save a liquidation process.

You don't need to reply to this, in fact I'd advise you to put me on ignore, but someone needs to call you out on this constant unrelenting drivel.

can people please keep me informed i a class action suit gets started against XEL I would be interested in signing up for it

I suggest we get a facebook page together since this forum will no longer exist in a few days/weeks

Hey its RUPERT COLE he can do what he wants apparently.......

heres a quick question..

How can XEL give 98.5% of the company to the bondholders, when they don't own 98.5% of it?

That's why we should attempt to take the BoD to court. Bunch of liars lining their own pockets and still doing it in total failure. CRIMINAL.

CB

We are also entitled to know who these bond holders are this secrecy by Cole et al is a disgrace.

So much for them not working together , right Spike