UK 03:32 Friday, 9 October 2026
Breaking news and expert analysis on fast-moving AIM and LSE listed shares
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.
In January 2014, IGAS (IGAS) announced that its CEO had transferred shares in the company to Equities Frist Holdings LLC as security for a loan. We have asked several times for clarification on this because the EFH contracts we have seen all show that the transfer is of title and voting rights.
Already a member? Sign in
• All premium articles
• Tom Winnifrith’s Bearcast
• Access to all the entire nearly 13 year archive
• ShareProphets Daily Newsletter
Cancel any time
This area of the ShareProphets.com site is for independent financial commentary. These blogs are provided by independent authors via a common carrier platform and do not represent the opinions of ShareProphets.com. ShareProphets.com does not monitor, approve, endorse or exert editorial control over these articles and does not therefore accept responsibility for or make any warranties in connection with or recommend that you or any third party rely on such information. The information available at ShareProphets.com is for your general information and use and is not intended to address your particular requirements. In particular, the information does not constitute any form of advice or recommendation by ShareProphets.com and is not intended to be relied upon by users in making (or refraining from making) any investment decisions.
Comments
Jason
Thanks for the hat-tip ~ I have actually asked iGAS for a response on this point which they initially responded to with a link to general Dart-Energy acquisition documents but not the specific point. I responded requesting a detailed answer on the 18th November but total silence from iGAS.
Prior to the acquisition had completed the share price had already dropped significantly so that the initial acquisition premium had all but evaporated for Dart holders indeed independent expert had changed their view to “UNFAIR but reasonable”. If details on this EFH deal had been disclosed and share price had responded as it has it doesn’t take a genius to assume that expert’s advice may have changed to “UNFAIR & UNREASONABLE”. Dart Energy with its farm-in deals with Total & GDF Suez, lack of debt and cash in bank would probably have been better off with it’s original independent AIM listing plans which was reason I bought in the first place!
I would certainly like a response on this issue as I believe holders weren’t given full disclosure but IGAS seem to have gone into ‘ignore’ mode. Perhaps shareprophets could give them a kick or two…?
nigel somerville
Jason, fear not. It is on the way.
RedBaron
Don’t understand all this fuss over EFH loans – EFH hold the shares but the holder of the loan has the right to buy them back so the HOLDER OF THE LOAN STILL HAS AN INTEREST IN THE SHARES. Think of it like a mortgage – the Bank hold the deeds to your property but you still refer to it as your house – Simples.
RedBaron
I don’t understand all this fuss about EFH loans. The person who takes the loan has the right to buy back the shares therefore: He still has an interest in the shares. Think of it like a mortgage – the bank hold the deeds to the property but you still refer to it as: my house – Simples.
Jimbo
Redbaron,
The difference is that nobody could give a stuff if you or I walk away from our mortgage and the bank repossesses the house. Rather more people give a stuff in the case of Rob Terry because if he defaults on his ‘loan’, then he gets to keep the cash after effectively selling his shares, whilst claiming in a regulatory news statement that he was buying more shares and increasing his existing holding.
Does this explain it sufficiently for you?
Cheers.
nigel somerville
…and it looks as thought EFH do not hold on to shares as its M O: it looks as though EFH (which is an LLC) sells them in the market upon receipt (as they are perfectly entitled to do under these types of contract).
As for the right to buy them back, the above does suggest a small spot of potential counterparty risk, does it not?
Jason
I look forward to reading/hearing more Nigel!
Director sales, particularly significant ones, are a pretty big red flag on any share unless there is a very good underlying reason. We have no idea how many of those 7.5m shares have been sold only that he used part of the loan to rebuy c300k. With share price so low why hasn’t he been using the loan facility to rebuy?
RedBaron
JIMBO
I was commenting on the basic principle of the loan, not to any individual director dealings.
I don’t give a stuff about RT and a lot of people are affected if someone defaults on their mortgage so my analogy still stands. ( OK the bank can’t sell the house like EFH can with the shares, before somebody gets pedantic) However as you have mentioned RT, the man made a stupid mistake or is very clever. People will endlessly argue about this. Hope there is a happy ending for the genuine QPP investors.
JASON
He is no longer a Director so how will we know if he not now scooping up more shares at bargain prices?
drunken sailor
Nigel,
Have you dropped the Aussie authorities a line on this. I had some dealings with them a few years ago. They have their faults, but are not the chocolate teapots of AIM regulation and FCA that we have to endure. They certainly won’t take kindly to some pomme taking the piss out of fair dinkum good ol Aussie investors.
nigel somerville
Redbaron – I fear you are confusing references to Andrew Austin. CEO (still) of IGAS with Rob Terry , former exec chairman of, and (apparently) no longer running QPP.
You might also consider the difference (as cited) between ‘holding’ and ‘having an interest in’ almost 11m shares. There is quite a difference!
nigel somerville
Drunken,
No but am happy to – have you an email to send to?
RedBaron
Nigel
Astute Comments, but assure you I am not confused.I never referred to either CEO or ex CEO in my original message.
You are playing with semantics.
My point was that that the EHF arrangement was perfectly legal. How people interpret the arrangement is up for discussion.
Jimbo
Nigel,
If you want to contact Australia’s Financial Market Regulator, the following link should help:
http://www.asic.gov.au/about-asic/contact-us/#write-to-us
Doubt they’ll respond quickly, but would be surprised if they weren’t interested.
Cheers.
Jimbo
nigel somerville
Redbaron – now you’ve got me confused! Who were you referring to as no longer being a director?
I’m not saying EFH are doing anything illegal. I don’t like what they do, I think it stincks, but I also think that it is inside the law. But the companies whose directors have gone into these packages have not all told the truth. The fact is that the standard EFH package is a sale and repurchase, with the repurchase an optional component because of the non-recourse nature of the contract. And therefore the directors have sold. Simple. Straightforward. Why won’t they just say so? Instead, they’re all (bar 1) saying they’re BUYING the stock!
This isn’t about playing with semantics or matters of interpretation. It is about whether IGAS is telling lies. It would be so easy for them to clear up any ‘misunderstanding’ and offer to ‘clarify’ the previous two statements if there was something not quite right about the market’s understanding of two RNSs which claim that the CEO is a net buyer of the company’s shares.
Has the Igas CEO really got a completely different contract to all the rest?
JIMBO – I’ll drop them a line: may as well! Thanks for the link.
Jason
Finally got a response from IGAS…. basically they have nothing to add to their announcement of the 26th November but my comments will be ‘passed to the board’. Fat lot of good that’ll do so I’ll be drafting a letter to UK/Australian regulators over the weekend to seek their views/action on lack of transparency in scheme booklet. If no-one rattles their cage these people will continue to treat PIs with contempt.