Zenith Arbitration Value Discussion
There has been a lot of discussion about the value of Zenith’s upcoming two arbitration claims (totalling $633 million), with some arguing the amounts are unrealistic and unlikely to be awarded. However, my own opinion, plus the precedent of two other major arbitration cases suggests otherwise.
Two major arbitration cases in recent years demonstrate that claims of this nature are not only legitimate but have also resulted in substantial awards are those announced by the public companies Rockhopper and GreenX.
Rockhopper vs Italy – Ombrina Mare – awarded €190 million ($198.8 million)
Ombrina Mare Background
• 2005: Mediterranean Oil and Gas (later acquired by Rockhopper) was granted an exploration permit for Ombrina Mare.
• 2008: The company confirmed oil reserves and applied for a production concession.
• 2010: Italy passed a law banning offshore oil exploration within 12 miles of the coast.
• 2012: An exemption allowed Ombrina Mare to proceed.
• 2014: Rockhopper acquired Mediterranean Oil and Gas.
• 2015: The ban was reinstated without exemptions, leading to the denial of Rockhopper’s concession.
• 2017: Rockhopper initiated arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), originally seeking €275 million.
• 2022: The arbitration tribunal ruled in favour of Rockhopper, awarding €190 million plus interest (EURIBOR +4%), bringing the total close to €250.5 million.
Arbitration Process and Key Findings
The arbitration was conducted under the ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).
Rockhopper successfully demonstrated that while Italy’s policy change banning offshore exploration was legal, the withdrawal of Ombrina Mare’s exemption was a violation of the ECT. The tribunal acknowledged that the investment was made under the expectation of continued operation, and the abrupt removal of rights amounted to unfair treatment.
Rockhopper argued that it had invested significant capital in the project, expecting that the exemption granted in 2012 would remain valid. The tribunal found that Italy’s decision to revoke the exemption, while maintaining the broader legal framework, led to direct and unjust damages for Rockhopper. The tribunal also recognized that Rockhopper had secured financing and technical expertise to move into the production phase, further substantiating its claim for damages.
The final award, including interest, reflects the project’s estimated lost profits had the concession been granted.
Two major arbitration cases in recent years demonstrate that claims of this nature are not only legitimate but have also resulted in substantial awards are those announced by the public companies Rockhopper and GreenX.
Rockhopper vs Italy – Ombrina Mare – awarded €190 million ($198.8 million)
Ombrina Mare Background
• 2005: Mediterranean Oil and Gas (later acquired by Rockhopper) was granted an exploration permit for Ombrina Mare.
• 2008: The company confirmed oil reserves and applied for a production concession.
• 2010: Italy passed a law banning offshore oil exploration within 12 miles of the coast.
• 2012: An exemption allowed Ombrina Mare to proceed.
• 2014: Rockhopper acquired Mediterranean Oil and Gas.
• 2015: The ban was reinstated without exemptions, leading to the denial of Rockhopper’s concession.
• 2017: Rockhopper initiated arbitration under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT), originally seeking €275 million.
• 2022: The arbitration tribunal ruled in favour of Rockhopper, awarding €190 million plus interest (EURIBOR +4%), bringing the total close to €250.5 million.
Arbitration Process and Key Findings
The arbitration was conducted under the ICSID (International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes) under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT).
Rockhopper successfully demonstrated that while Italy’s policy change banning offshore exploration was legal, the withdrawal of Ombrina Mare’s exemption was a violation of the ECT. The tribunal acknowledged that the investment was made under the expectation of continued operation, and the abrupt removal of rights amounted to unfair treatment.
Rockhopper argued that it had invested significant capital in the project, expecting that the exemption granted in 2012 would remain valid. The tribunal found that Italy’s decision to revoke the exemption, while maintaining the broader legal framework, led to direct and unjust damages for Rockhopper. The tribunal also recognized that Rockhopper had secured financing and technical expertise to move into the production phase, further substantiating its claim for damages.
The final award, including interest, reflects the project’s estimated lost profits had the concession been granted.
MarketGunsling
19.02.2025 kl 15:16
12784
GreenX – Jan Karski and Dębieńsko Coal Projects
• 2020: GreenX filed for arbitration against Poland, seeking £806 million ($1.14 billion) under the BIT and ECT.
• Allegations:
o Poland denied GreenX a mining concession for Jan Karski but awarded it to a local competitor.
o The company had followed all legal and environmental requirements, and the government’s refusal to grant the concession was considered discriminatory.
o Poland refused to extend a deadline for the Dębieńsko project, rendering the investment worthless.
• 2024: The tribunal rejected the Dębieńsko claim ($507 million) in its entirety but accepted the Jan Karski claim and awarded £252 million ($318 million), equivalent to 62.5% of the value of that claim (half of the total).
Arbitration Process and Key Findings
GreenX’s case revolved around Poland’s failure to provide fair and equitable treatment under its treaty obligations. The tribunal ruled that Poland’s decision to deny a concession while favouring local interests constituted discriminatory treatment.
The tribunal did reject half of GreenX’s claim related to the Dębieńsko project, citing that Poland acted within its rights in refusing to extend a development deadline. However, the Jan Karski ruling established that an investor’s rights cannot be arbitrarily dismissed in favour of state interests without due process.
GreenX demonstrated that it had spent money on project development, securing infrastructure, and preparing for large-scale mining operations. The tribunal acknowledged that Poland’s decision effectively rendered GreenX’s investment worthless. And had cost it a very substantial amount of money in lost future-earnings.
Additionally, the fact that Poland granted the concession to a local entity further supported the argument that GreenX had been treated unfairly under international investment protections.
• 2020: GreenX filed for arbitration against Poland, seeking £806 million ($1.14 billion) under the BIT and ECT.
• Allegations:
o Poland denied GreenX a mining concession for Jan Karski but awarded it to a local competitor.
o The company had followed all legal and environmental requirements, and the government’s refusal to grant the concession was considered discriminatory.
o Poland refused to extend a deadline for the Dębieńsko project, rendering the investment worthless.
• 2024: The tribunal rejected the Dębieńsko claim ($507 million) in its entirety but accepted the Jan Karski claim and awarded £252 million ($318 million), equivalent to 62.5% of the value of that claim (half of the total).
Arbitration Process and Key Findings
GreenX’s case revolved around Poland’s failure to provide fair and equitable treatment under its treaty obligations. The tribunal ruled that Poland’s decision to deny a concession while favouring local interests constituted discriminatory treatment.
The tribunal did reject half of GreenX’s claim related to the Dębieńsko project, citing that Poland acted within its rights in refusing to extend a development deadline. However, the Jan Karski ruling established that an investor’s rights cannot be arbitrarily dismissed in favour of state interests without due process.
GreenX demonstrated that it had spent money on project development, securing infrastructure, and preparing for large-scale mining operations. The tribunal acknowledged that Poland’s decision effectively rendered GreenX’s investment worthless. And had cost it a very substantial amount of money in lost future-earnings.
Additionally, the fact that Poland granted the concession to a local entity further supported the argument that GreenX had been treated unfairly under international investment protections.
Redigert 19.02.2025 kl 15:16
Du må logge inn for å svare
MarketGunsling
19.02.2025 kl 15:16
12873
Why Zenith’s Case Is Even Stronger
Unlike Rockhopper and GreenX, Zenith’s assets were actively producing when they were illegally seized.
• SLK (Sidi El-Kilani):545bopd production - 245 bopd net to Zenith = $7M lost per year, $28M over four years.
• The other assets: Ezzaouia (465 bopd production – 209 bopd net to Zenith), Robbana (25bopd all to Zenith), El Bibane (100 barrels condensate per day – all to Zenith). This gives a combined income of 334 bopd @ $80 per barrel equating to $9.75 million per annum.
• When all of the assets are combined together thig gives a combined net loss of almost $17M/year. Over four years, that’s $68M from measurable losses without having to estimate anything.
• On top of this the company had announced plans (and raised funding via debt and equity) to expand production in Robbana to 250bopd and El Bibane to 500 bopd as well as SLK to 2,000 bopd (900 bopd net to Zenith).
• Add together SLK at 900 bopd, Ezzaouia at 209 bopd (no improvement) and Robbana at 250 and El Bibane at 500 and this gives 1,859 bopd production. At $80 per barrel this would give $54 million per annum meaning that future potential losses would exceed $200M after just four years. Over 10 it would be $540 million. These are the kind of calculations that would have been done in the GreenX and Rockhopper cases.
Other reasons why the Zenith case is stronger
• Sequestration Without Legal Justification: Unlike Italy and Poland, Tunisia didn’t even pass laws to justify its actions. It simply stole the assets. It was a clear-cut case of expropriation and the fact that they allowed the state oil company to take the oil and the licenses from Zenith has clear parallels with the GreenX case.
• Operational Disruption: Unlike Rockhopper and GreenX, which were claiming based on speculative future profits, Zenith had established, revenue-generating operations that were forcefully taken. This makes their claim far less speculative and easier to quantify.
• Legal Precedent Already Established: The first arbitration already ruled in Zenith’s favour that their oil had been taken illegally. This sets a precedent that supports their subsequent claims and adds considerable weight to the case. If the oil belonged to Zenith (like the arbitration has already ruled) then clearly the licenses also belonged to Zenith – which has a major impact on the next two cases.
• Blatant Treaty Violation: Italy and Poland attempted to justify their actions through legal loopholes or policy changes, whereas Tunisia’s actions were outright illegal, providing a much stronger foundation for Zenith’s case.
• No Legal Grounds for Expropriation: In Rockhopper and GreenX’s cases, Italy and Poland had at least some policy justification for their actions, even if they violated treaties. Tunisia’s actions, however, lack any policy defence, making their position much weaker in arbitration.
• Higher Financial Damages: The revenue Zenith has demonstrably lost due to Tunisia’s actions is significantly higher than the speculative potential earnings claimed in the Rockhopper and GreenX cases. This makes it easier for arbitrators to assign a tangible core value to the damages and then put the speculative element on top.
• Direct Evidence of Financial Harm: Unlike Rockhopper and GreenX, which had to argue lost potential revenue, Zenith has direct financial records showing the revenue generated before expropriation and the losses suffered due to Tunisia’s actions. This makes the claim highly quantifiable and less prone to dispute.
By calculating lost production and expected future production under normal conditions, the claim surpasses $600M+ when damages are included. This isn’t speculation—it’s a direct consequence of illegal asset seizures.
Why the Full Claim Is Likely to Be Awarded
Rockhopper and GreenX won their claims despite:
1. Never reaching production.
2. Facing legal (yet treaty-violating) governmental actions.
Zenith’s case is stronger because:
1. Its assets were already producing and generating revenue.
2. The expropriation was blatantly illegal with no legal justification.
3. The precedent from the first arbitration already ruled in Zenith’s favour.
Given the success of Rockhopper and GreenX, and the far more egregious nature of Tunisia’s actions, there is a strong case for Zenith to receive the full $633M claim. The facts, the precedent, and the magnitude of damages all support this outcome.
Unlike Rockhopper and GreenX, Zenith’s assets were actively producing when they were illegally seized.
• SLK (Sidi El-Kilani):545bopd production - 245 bopd net to Zenith = $7M lost per year, $28M over four years.
• The other assets: Ezzaouia (465 bopd production – 209 bopd net to Zenith), Robbana (25bopd all to Zenith), El Bibane (100 barrels condensate per day – all to Zenith). This gives a combined income of 334 bopd @ $80 per barrel equating to $9.75 million per annum.
• When all of the assets are combined together thig gives a combined net loss of almost $17M/year. Over four years, that’s $68M from measurable losses without having to estimate anything.
• On top of this the company had announced plans (and raised funding via debt and equity) to expand production in Robbana to 250bopd and El Bibane to 500 bopd as well as SLK to 2,000 bopd (900 bopd net to Zenith).
• Add together SLK at 900 bopd, Ezzaouia at 209 bopd (no improvement) and Robbana at 250 and El Bibane at 500 and this gives 1,859 bopd production. At $80 per barrel this would give $54 million per annum meaning that future potential losses would exceed $200M after just four years. Over 10 it would be $540 million. These are the kind of calculations that would have been done in the GreenX and Rockhopper cases.
Other reasons why the Zenith case is stronger
• Sequestration Without Legal Justification: Unlike Italy and Poland, Tunisia didn’t even pass laws to justify its actions. It simply stole the assets. It was a clear-cut case of expropriation and the fact that they allowed the state oil company to take the oil and the licenses from Zenith has clear parallels with the GreenX case.
• Operational Disruption: Unlike Rockhopper and GreenX, which were claiming based on speculative future profits, Zenith had established, revenue-generating operations that were forcefully taken. This makes their claim far less speculative and easier to quantify.
• Legal Precedent Already Established: The first arbitration already ruled in Zenith’s favour that their oil had been taken illegally. This sets a precedent that supports their subsequent claims and adds considerable weight to the case. If the oil belonged to Zenith (like the arbitration has already ruled) then clearly the licenses also belonged to Zenith – which has a major impact on the next two cases.
• Blatant Treaty Violation: Italy and Poland attempted to justify their actions through legal loopholes or policy changes, whereas Tunisia’s actions were outright illegal, providing a much stronger foundation for Zenith’s case.
• No Legal Grounds for Expropriation: In Rockhopper and GreenX’s cases, Italy and Poland had at least some policy justification for their actions, even if they violated treaties. Tunisia’s actions, however, lack any policy defence, making their position much weaker in arbitration.
• Higher Financial Damages: The revenue Zenith has demonstrably lost due to Tunisia’s actions is significantly higher than the speculative potential earnings claimed in the Rockhopper and GreenX cases. This makes it easier for arbitrators to assign a tangible core value to the damages and then put the speculative element on top.
• Direct Evidence of Financial Harm: Unlike Rockhopper and GreenX, which had to argue lost potential revenue, Zenith has direct financial records showing the revenue generated before expropriation and the losses suffered due to Tunisia’s actions. This makes the claim highly quantifiable and less prone to dispute.
By calculating lost production and expected future production under normal conditions, the claim surpasses $600M+ when damages are included. This isn’t speculation—it’s a direct consequence of illegal asset seizures.
Why the Full Claim Is Likely to Be Awarded
Rockhopper and GreenX won their claims despite:
1. Never reaching production.
2. Facing legal (yet treaty-violating) governmental actions.
Zenith’s case is stronger because:
1. Its assets were already producing and generating revenue.
2. The expropriation was blatantly illegal with no legal justification.
3. The precedent from the first arbitration already ruled in Zenith’s favour.
Given the success of Rockhopper and GreenX, and the far more egregious nature of Tunisia’s actions, there is a strong case for Zenith to receive the full $633M claim. The facts, the precedent, and the magnitude of damages all support this outcome.
Konjagi
19.02.2025 kl 15:23
12886
Thank you MG.
This is all we need and based on facts
This is all we need and based on facts
Redigert 19.02.2025 kl 15:27
Du må logge inn for å svare
Fjellbris
19.02.2025 kl 15:25
12949
Thank you so much MG!🙏👍👏👌
Hold and wait untill case 2 and 3 are settled!!!
Hold and wait untill case 2 and 3 are settled!!!
Redigert 19.02.2025 kl 15:27
Du må logge inn for å svare
Fjellbris
19.02.2025 kl 17:44
12785
Håper vi kan fortsette diskusjonen på denne tråden, da de andre trådene både er full og inneholder altfor mye tull og udokumenterte påstander. Ber alle lese godt hva Marker Gunsling skriver i start innlegget her. Meget god info, og ikke minst dokumentasjon og begrunnelse, så prøv å hold tilsvarende nivå om man er uenig.
Fjellbris
19.02.2025 kl 18:50
12645
JA, se åpningsinnlegget - vi trenger en ny tråd med substans og innhold, ikke bare ubegrunnet synsing enten om det er hausing eller baising.
MC Axel
19.02.2025 kl 21:06
12370
Thank you! 👍
A well crafted and informative scenario, with good examples from real life
It's not often you see such good work on the forum 🙂
P.S. Everyone should read the beginning of this thread
A well crafted and informative scenario, with good examples from real life
It's not often you see such good work on the forum 🙂
P.S. Everyone should read the beginning of this thread
Redigert 19.02.2025 kl 21:12
Du må logge inn for å svare
Kingen
20.02.2025 kl 07:50
11795
Thank you so much MG. This is brilliant work from you, and should be read of both new and old shareholders, to see and understand how strong position Zena has in this case/claim.
Redigert 20.02.2025 kl 07:50
Du må logge inn for å svare
Barneskirenn
20.02.2025 kl 08:35
11589
Final hearings of ICC-2 Arbitration
February 20, 2025
ZENITH ENERGY LTD.
("Zenith" or the "Company")
Final hearings of ICC-2 Arbitration
Zenith Energy Ltd. ("Zenith" or the "Company") (LSE: ZEN; OSE: ZENA; OTC PINK: ZENAF), the listed international energy production and development company, is pleased to announce that the pre-hearing session of the ICC-2 Arbitration regarding the Sidi El Kilani concession (“SLK Concession”) against the Republic of Tunisia (“ICC-2 Arbitration”) has now been held, and to confirm that the final hearings of the ICC-2 Arbitration will be held next week.
Background
Zenith's fully owned subsidiary, Canadian North Africa Oil and Gas Limited ("CNAOG") initiated the ICC-2 Arbitration against the Republic of Tunisia, as announced in December 2023, following a series of arbitrary actions and obstructions undertaken by the Republic of Tunisia, leading to the arbitrary termination of the SLK concession.
Inter alia, these included:
• CNAOG's lost production revenue and associated profitability, during a period of high energy prices, from the SLK Concession until its initial expiry in December 2022.
• The volume of crude oil produced from the SLK Concession and allocated to and received by CNAOG upon the completion of the acquisition.
• Unpaid invoices for oil production by ETAP, the national oil company of Tunisia.
• The value of the 45% interest in the renewal of the SLK Concession, representing a breach of CNAOG's right to renew its previously existing 22.5% interest in SLK, as well as the 22.5% interest held by Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Exploration Company, which relinquished its interest in the SLK Concession before its initial expiry.
CNAOG has filed claims in the amount of approximately US$130 million following calculations made by third-party experts.
Procedural Timeline
Following the pre-hearing session of the ICC-2 Arbitral Tribunal, the procedural timeline has been finalised.
The final hearings of the ICC-2 Arbitration are scheduled to take place during the week commencing February 24, 2025.
Andrea Cattaneo, Chief Executive Officer, commented:
“We are pleased that the final hearings of the ICC-2 Arbitration are to be held during the course of next week.
Our primary objective remains to achieve legal redress for the very significant damages caused to CNAOG.”
Further Information:
Zenith Energy Ltd
Andrea Cattaneo, Chief Executive Officer
Tel: +1 (587) 315 1279
E: info@zenithenergy.ca
February 20, 2025
ZENITH ENERGY LTD.
("Zenith" or the "Company")
Final hearings of ICC-2 Arbitration
Zenith Energy Ltd. ("Zenith" or the "Company") (LSE: ZEN; OSE: ZENA; OTC PINK: ZENAF), the listed international energy production and development company, is pleased to announce that the pre-hearing session of the ICC-2 Arbitration regarding the Sidi El Kilani concession (“SLK Concession”) against the Republic of Tunisia (“ICC-2 Arbitration”) has now been held, and to confirm that the final hearings of the ICC-2 Arbitration will be held next week.
Background
Zenith's fully owned subsidiary, Canadian North Africa Oil and Gas Limited ("CNAOG") initiated the ICC-2 Arbitration against the Republic of Tunisia, as announced in December 2023, following a series of arbitrary actions and obstructions undertaken by the Republic of Tunisia, leading to the arbitrary termination of the SLK concession.
Inter alia, these included:
• CNAOG's lost production revenue and associated profitability, during a period of high energy prices, from the SLK Concession until its initial expiry in December 2022.
• The volume of crude oil produced from the SLK Concession and allocated to and received by CNAOG upon the completion of the acquisition.
• Unpaid invoices for oil production by ETAP, the national oil company of Tunisia.
• The value of the 45% interest in the renewal of the SLK Concession, representing a breach of CNAOG's right to renew its previously existing 22.5% interest in SLK, as well as the 22.5% interest held by Kuwait Foreign Petroleum Exploration Company, which relinquished its interest in the SLK Concession before its initial expiry.
CNAOG has filed claims in the amount of approximately US$130 million following calculations made by third-party experts.
Procedural Timeline
Following the pre-hearing session of the ICC-2 Arbitral Tribunal, the procedural timeline has been finalised.
The final hearings of the ICC-2 Arbitration are scheduled to take place during the week commencing February 24, 2025.
Andrea Cattaneo, Chief Executive Officer, commented:
“We are pleased that the final hearings of the ICC-2 Arbitration are to be held during the course of next week.
Our primary objective remains to achieve legal redress for the very significant damages caused to CNAOG.”
Further Information:
Zenith Energy Ltd
Andrea Cattaneo, Chief Executive Officer
Tel: +1 (587) 315 1279
E: info@zenithenergy.ca
oryx
20.02.2025 kl 08:44
11541
Fantastisk! :) ZENA begynte å stige kraftig i går ettermiddag, nå vet vi grunnen til det. Går ZENA over 1,50 kroner allerede i dag!?? :D :D :D
Redigert 20.02.2025 kl 08:49
Du må logge inn for å svare
MC Axel
20.02.2025 kl 08:46
11559
👍 Exciting!
This is from Shareville:
"For dem der ikke ved det. Tidligere på måneden fyrede Tunesien sin finansminister og ansatte en ny, som også bevilgede 2,2 milliarder dollars til erstatningssager ligesom dem, de står overfor med Zenith"
Google trans:
"For those who don't know. Earlier this month, Tunisia fired its finance minister and hired a new one, who also allocated $2.2 billion for compensation cases like the ones they face above with Zenith"
https://newsweb.oslobors.no/message/639240
This is from Shareville:
"For dem der ikke ved det. Tidligere på måneden fyrede Tunesien sin finansminister og ansatte en ny, som også bevilgede 2,2 milliarder dollars til erstatningssager ligesom dem, de står overfor med Zenith"
Google trans:
"For those who don't know. Earlier this month, Tunisia fired its finance minister and hired a new one, who also allocated $2.2 billion for compensation cases like the ones they face above with Zenith"
https://newsweb.oslobors.no/message/639240
Barneskirenn
20.02.2025 kl 08:52
11507
Kan du prøve å finne en link til artikkel for denne informasjonen? Det hadde vært interessant å lese.
MC Axel
20.02.2025 kl 11:29
10932
Yes 🙂
"Zenith Energy ready for final negotiations in arbitration case against Tunisia"
Always good to get media coverage
Zenith Energy klar for sluttforhandlinger i voldgiftssak mot Tunisia
Espen Teigland av Espen Teigland 20.02.2025
https://investornytt.no/zenith-energy-klar-for-sluttforhandlinger-i-voldgiftssak-mot-tunisia/
"Zenith Energy ready for final negotiations in arbitration case against Tunisia"
Always good to get media coverage
Zenith Energy klar for sluttforhandlinger i voldgiftssak mot Tunisia
Espen Teigland av Espen Teigland 20.02.2025
https://investornytt.no/zenith-energy-klar-for-sluttforhandlinger-i-voldgiftssak-mot-tunisia/
Peter Sellers
20.02.2025 kl 11:48
10847
@MCA, yes it's just a matter of days before we will have a great share price :))
Mdg1
20.02.2025 kl 12:12
10729
Yes, about 100 days before share price is rising in advance of the next court win. Then new rise after. 2,5 nok in june and 5 nok in september. then 10 nok spring 2026 for the patient ones.
E Desperados
20.02.2025 kl 12:41
10629
Hvis det er samme dommere som i sak 1 så er det jo ingen grunn til at en endelig avgjørelse skal drøye helt til september.
tsu for all
20.02.2025 kl 12:46
10609
no, det skal betales utbytte høsten 2025, så kursen blir ikke så mye som 10 kr
bakeren74
20.02.2025 kl 13:09
10528
Utbytte blir vel betalt ut når zenith ev får penger fra Tunisia.
Vinne saken er en ting, men når penger kommer må jo tiden vise. AC var tydelig på utbytte etter hver vunnet sak, så ellers så er det jo bare å vente, håpe og planlegge hvor utbytte skal brukes.
AC sa heller ikke noe om hvor mye utbytte skal være på. La oss si utbytte blir på en viss %, så er det fortsatt kanskje et godt stykke unna utbetalingen de ender opp med.
Vinne saken er en ting, men når penger kommer må jo tiden vise. AC var tydelig på utbytte etter hver vunnet sak, så ellers så er det jo bare å vente, håpe og planlegge hvor utbytte skal brukes.
AC sa heller ikke noe om hvor mye utbytte skal være på. La oss si utbytte blir på en viss %, så er det fortsatt kanskje et godt stykke unna utbetalingen de ender opp med.
JanH
20.02.2025 kl 14:30
10405
Om f.eks. et forlik ender opp i 10 kr pr aksje (som er ekstremt lavt), så vil kursen umiddelbart sprette opp til 10 kr.! Så enkelt !
MC Axel
21.02.2025 kl 08:00
9667
Now we had another bottom set at 1.26 NOK and the management took an issue at 1.34 NOK.
The management is confident of victory and I believe the road is paved for a further rise in the share price.
The fact that more shares are coming and that we now don't get 10 NOK per share, but rather 9 NOK is not a problem. In any case, it is much higher than today's share price.
All of this supports a dividend payment in the future
The management is confident of victory and I believe the road is paved for a further rise in the share price.
The fact that more shares are coming and that we now don't get 10 NOK per share, but rather 9 NOK is not a problem. In any case, it is much higher than today's share price.
All of this supports a dividend payment in the future
Mdg1
21.02.2025 kl 10:05
9434
Om alle warrants skulle løses ut før første utbytte betales ut vil det fortsatt være ca 10 kr pr aksje etter rettsaker. Oppsiden om man da får 5 kr når man selger aksjen så er det langt opp fra dagens 1,3.
As of March 31, 2024, the Group had 14,116,154 (2023 – 446,202,023) warrants outstanding (relating to
14,116,154 shares)
As of March 31, 2024, the Group had 18,088,294 (2023 – 18,725,745) stock options outstanding (relating to
18,088,294 shares).
Så kommer disse i tillegg som treffer 28.okt 2026. The Company has issued 95,000,000 share purchase warrants (the “Warrants”) exercisable at a price of NOK 0.29, applying a ratio of 1:1 in connection with the Placement Shares and Debt Settlement Shares, with a fixed duration of two years from the date of issuance.
As of March 31, 2024, the Group had 14,116,154 (2023 – 446,202,023) warrants outstanding (relating to
14,116,154 shares)
As of March 31, 2024, the Group had 18,088,294 (2023 – 18,725,745) stock options outstanding (relating to
18,088,294 shares).
Så kommer disse i tillegg som treffer 28.okt 2026. The Company has issued 95,000,000 share purchase warrants (the “Warrants”) exercisable at a price of NOK 0.29, applying a ratio of 1:1 in connection with the Placement Shares and Debt Settlement Shares, with a fixed duration of two years from the date of issuance.
Redigert 21.02.2025 kl 10:10
Du må logge inn for å svare
Mdg1
21.02.2025 kl 10:13
9410
Holder AC ord vil i alle fall de første utbyttene fra rettsak 2 betales ut før warrants inntreffer om snart to år. Opsjonene vil sikkert løses inn før utbytter betales
Fjellbris
21.02.2025 kl 10:43
9305
Helt enig MC Axel! Nedsiden nå begrenset i intervallet 1,26-1,34, så meget god risk and reward nå frem mot og over rettssaken neste uke. Etter aksjeopsjonene nå tror jeg også mer på et snarlig forlik, flere skal nå få del av kaka, og AC større stykke, men det fortjener de! Om vi får kr 9 vs kr 10 så tror jeg alle her inne også blir happy :-)
Fjellbris
21.02.2025 kl 11:36
9133
Igjen så hiver folk ut pengene sine. Har skrevet det mange ganger før at kurs under 1,34 var «penger på gata».
Bare å laste nå og sitte rolig og avvente sak 2 og 3 eller forlik sammen med styret, ledelsen og ansatte som får lønn for innsatsen på nivået 1,26-1,34. Får ikke bedre kjøpssignal enn dette.
Beste råd jeg kan gi er nå å ikke lese for mye her inne, ta sine egne valg og stole på egen dømmekraft + se hva styret og ledelsen gjør/kjøper!
Bare å laste nå og sitte rolig og avvente sak 2 og 3 eller forlik sammen med styret, ledelsen og ansatte som får lønn for innsatsen på nivået 1,26-1,34. Får ikke bedre kjøpssignal enn dette.
Beste råd jeg kan gi er nå å ikke lese for mye her inne, ta sine egne valg og stole på egen dømmekraft + se hva styret og ledelsen gjør/kjøper!
MC Axel
21.02.2025 kl 22:43
8524
Agree! :)
It's been a lot of nonsense to read on the forum today. Only to scare those who haven't gotten into the details and don't know what's going on.
Otherwise, thanks for your contribution :)
It's been a lot of nonsense to read on the forum today. Only to scare those who haven't gotten into the details and don't know what's going on.
Otherwise, thanks for your contribution :)
Northill
21.02.2025 kl 23:11
8455
Er det noen av dere kloke hoder som hyler om warrants og opsjoner sett på når disse avtalene var tegnet? Om ikke, sjekk det opp og vurder det opp mot 10:1 spleis av aksjene som fant sted 27.09.2023
https://newsweb.oslobors.no/message/600361
Dette gjelder også for opsjoner tegnet før denne dato.
Mange av warrants er linket til forskjellige lån, flere av de allerede nedbetal og derav ikke gyldige.
Årsrapport for selskapet i år kommer til å gjengi riktig antall.
Bruk hodet, ikke gjør som måsen…. Å svelge alt som publiseres på disse forum.
https://newsweb.oslobors.no/message/600361
Dette gjelder også for opsjoner tegnet før denne dato.
Mange av warrants er linket til forskjellige lån, flere av de allerede nedbetal og derav ikke gyldige.
Årsrapport for selskapet i år kommer til å gjengi riktig antall.
Bruk hodet, ikke gjør som måsen…. Å svelge alt som publiseres på disse forum.
Liverbirds
21.02.2025 kl 23:17
8442
Selv så leser jeg en god del, men følger kun det Aqualight skriver.
Northill
21.02.2025 kl 23:58
8395
Ja han har gode innspill, selv om jeg har lest enkelte tråder av han som er skrevet i affekt også.
Mulig han kunne sett på og publisert riktige tall for antall opsjoner som finnes i selskapet.
Tatt i betraktning 10:1 aksjespleis i 2023, og at opsjonene gjerne har 5 års varighet, så tror jeg ikke det finnes mer enn ca 45 mill opsjoner, flere av disse opsjonene går ut snart og har en kostnad på 2,0 kr/aksjer.
Mulig han kunne sett på og publisert riktige tall for antall opsjoner som finnes i selskapet.
Tatt i betraktning 10:1 aksjespleis i 2023, og at opsjonene gjerne har 5 års varighet, så tror jeg ikke det finnes mer enn ca 45 mill opsjoner, flere av disse opsjonene går ut snart og har en kostnad på 2,0 kr/aksjer.
MC Axel
24.02.2025 kl 09:19
7315
I recommend everyone to read the beginning of this thread by MG
Very well put together and written
This will be an exciting week for Zenith stock!
Very well put together and written
This will be an exciting week for Zenith stock!
Bullfight
24.02.2025 kl 11:12
6984
Tydelig at traderene ute her, det ser man på innleggene her, radiocilece i dag (:
tuja
24.02.2025 kl 11:59
6784
Det antydes i en annen tråd at Zena allerede har fått tilbud på 4,4 kr pr aksje i forlik. Da kan man undres på hvorfor kursen surrer rundt ned mot 1,2 kr pr aksje.
Anywhere
24.02.2025 kl 12:01
6780
Det er nok atter en innbilning som noen postulerer som en sannhet, uten at det er opplyst om noe som helst i denne retning, ei heller at det har vært forliks-sonderinger...
Anywhere
24.02.2025 kl 12:07
6742
Bullfight, er det i så fall et styrketegn for aksjen at den faller 6-7% dersom tradere er ute? Er den kun trader-drevet oppover??
Trucker-22
24.02.2025 kl 12:13
6707
Omtrent fraværende interesse og det samme viste seg i slutt auksjonene fredag. Tradere som har drevet kursen og når dem er ute finnes det ikke interesse for aksjen. Eller er det "AC rabatten" som begynner å gjenspeile seg i kursen.
unikum
24.02.2025 kl 12:20
6648
Nå har tradere fått fylt opp igjen så da kan vi ta igjen det tapte fra fredagen og idag, der enkelte ble litt engstelige..
JobPeterson
24.02.2025 kl 12:43
6555
Ingen interesse? Prisen gikk fra 0,17 til 2 kr. Prisen har holdt seg på 1,3 kr. Hvis det regnes som manglende interesse for en aksje, så ville aksjen vært 10 kr hvis det faktisk var interesse – LOL. Hvis voldgiften går bra denne uken, vil jeg tippe at AC gir oss beskjed.
Trucker-22
24.02.2025 kl 12:56
6475
10kr. aksjen?? først vil jeg se hvem som kjøper denne aksjer for 10 kr. før jeg tror på det.