We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Https://www.justgiving.com/page/ryan-gaffney-1692272600856
Don't forget this at the weekend, he helped steal our money.
So they have successfully stolen our money and they are now looking for immunity on any future legal action.
Unbelievable what corporate criminals think they can get away with.
Satisfaction may have to be obtained by other means.
So is it ‘only’ Atomic and CUDA that Summit bought to cover the debt?
Any oil containing land left for COPL?
Will it resume trading?
I hope Anavio didn’t get a penny!
Thanks RBM, the process the company is being pushed through is well trodden and with exception of some COPL specific words it follows a process that is legally ok and will pass through.
As the CAG are doing all that can be done is you formally oppose where possible, and interject where you can but the purpose of that is support the long process of class action that follows not with any real hope of altering the course.
CAG is very much aware of the proposed protection orders and are working to find a solution. It’s the main reason for lack of posting, this is our priority for now.
These crooks appear to be one step ahead of us at each and every turn. It seems they are continuing with this fraud, with the authorities, probably not complicit, but certainly displaying casual indifference to the plight of the shareholders. If these people cannot be stopped by legal means what is left?????
Stas, might thoughts too as I voiced last night.
Not only have they juggernauted the sale process through to prevent any meaningful bid be made they are now trying to expedite closure that prevents redress.
I sincerely hope the SAG are on top of this.
Who are, "OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP" representing?
The doc is addressed to them as the court is expecting some kind of appeal from them. ? ?
NOTICE TO THE RESPONDENT
This application is made against you. You are a respondent. You have the right to state your side of this matter before the Court. To do so, you must be in Court when the application is heard as shown below:
Date: April 24, 2024
Time: 10:00 AM – 12:00 PM
Where: Calgary Courts Center, 601 – 5th Street SW, Calgary AB (by Webex – see Schedule “C” hereto)
Before: The Honourable Justice Yamauchi
Go to the end of this document to see what you can do and when you must do it.
WARNING
You are named as a respondent because you have made or are expected to make an adverse claim in respect of this originating application. If you do not come to Court either in person or by your lawyer, the Court may make an order declaring you and all persons claiming under you to be barred from taking any further proceedings against the applicant(s) and against all persons claiming under the applicant(s). You will be bound by any order the Court makes, or another order might be given or other proceedings taken which the applicant(s) is/are entitled to make without any further notice to you. If you want to take part in the application, you or your lawyer must attend in Court on the date and at the time shown at the beginning of this form. If you intend to give evidence in response to the application, you must reply by filing an affidavit or other evidence with the Court and serving a copy of that affidavit or other evidence on the
applicant(s) a reasonable time before the application is to be heard or considered.
This is obviously disappointing however I want to highlight a few points that I think the CAG need to be specifically aware of and at least raise to the lawyers.
The first point being;
1. Protection and Release Orders: The application also seeks to release and protect various stakeholders including directors, officers, and legal counsel involved in the restructuring process from future claims related to the actions taken under the CCAA proceedings. - Protection and Release Orders are commonly sought to insulate key parties from future legal claims related to their roles and actions in the restructuring process.
If there are suspicions or evidence that the restructuring under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) has been engineered by directors to improperly divert assets or otherwise defraud shareholders or creditors, there are several legal and regulatory mechanisms that can be triggered to address such misconduct:
Legal Remedies and Protections
Challenging the Protection Orders: Stakeholders, such as creditors or shareholders, can challenge the issuance of Protection and Release Orders if they believe there is evidence of malfeasance. They can argue that the protection should not apply to actions rooted in bad faith or fraudulent behavior.
Investigation: Allegations of fraud or abuse of the restructuring process can prompt investigations by regulatory bodies or a court-appointed monitor. The monitor’s role is to oversee the process and ensure compliance with legal and ethical standards.
Litigation: Shareholders or creditors can initiate legal actions against the directors if there is evidence suggesting that the restructuring is being used as a façade for fraud or asset-stripping. This litigation could seek to recover damages or reverse fraudulent transactions.
Criminal Charges: If there's substantial evidence of intentional misconduct or fraud, it could lead to criminal investigations and potential charges against the directors involved.
Directors' Duties and Liability: Directors are legally obligated to act in the best interest of the corporation, which includes a duty of care and duty of loyalty. Breaching these duties can lead to personal liability, despite the restructuring context.
IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT - IMPORTANT -
Warning and Legal Notice: The document contains a warning to respondents about the consequences of not participating in the court proceedings, indicating that failure to appear can lead to barring further claims against the applicants.
Based on the document, the hearing date for objections to the protection orders would be April 24, 2024, from 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM at the Calgary Courts Center, 601 – 5th Street SW, Calgary AB. The document specifies that this hearing will be conducted via Webex.
To object to the protection orders outlined in the document, we would need to attend this hearing WE MUST
Can RBMInvest or any CAG member shed light on the SWP inclusion (or not) within the sale? It's mentioned twice in the AVO.
To me it suggests they may no longer be needed, that points to a larger organisation with experience operators ready to hit the ground running.
If this is provable now or at any point in the future it would strongly indicate a conspiracy to defraud us of our assets as the timing does not fit a normal continuation of operations i.e. SWP onsite. We're told no O&G operators are interested so how can they continue without SWP.
As you can imagine, we are discussing the situation at length, both internally and with Mr Cotter, and will report back by the end of the day.
I’m stunned no LOI’s??? - good god if WE had each put in some funds we coud’ve bid independantly for more than SHB - also 137 approaches in PK’s affadafit? Why did PK tell a shareholder 160 approaches- unbelievable! All of it! What happens to the assets not inc in the sale? Can we or CAG approach the SL and buy from them? They don’t want them obviously. What is next? Shareholder takoever? Our market listing has value can another RTO manoeuver into it? IMHO DYOR
yes i have lost everything in this company so a bit ****ed off really but we have been scammed and i really don’t think we will see a penny back
Sounds like it's all over here - some really gullible people in denial who refused to see the writing on the wall that was plain to see for months here !
RBM we are not going to get a penny back now
Maybe we was all just sold a big fat lie. Nobody really ever wanted it. Let's face it Arthur probably bought it with loans etc and made a fortune. Only mugs here were us 😭. Night all don't let it get you down. What goes around etc. People use to say here it's his last chance to prove himself, well he prove himself to be a fraud.
Another telling fact is they reached out to 137 parties, but only 4 could bring themselves to signing the NDA to view the data room.
Was that due to the timescales offered? Was it getting internal governance to agree the NDA on the table?
I do know that the bigger the company the longer it takes to agree even a simple NDA, let alone go on to bid.
Was it there is nothing worth buying, without even viewing the data?
The game plan imho was to ensure no one would or could have bid by the simple action of setting unfeasibly short timelines.
Angus, we were not wrong. We left options open as several parties entered the data room. Unfortunately, this was almost the most likely outcome.
We’ll be giving our thoughts tomorrow, following discussions with Mr Cotter.
Disappointed, but we remain up for the fight.
nothing from the cag they where wrong again what a load of ****
Who are, "OSLER, HOSKIN & HARCOURT LLP" representing?
The doc is addressed to them as the court is expecting some kind of appeal from them. ? ?
Agree that previous and current BOD should not be immune from further action!!
As said when this all started; the timescales afforded by this process precluded any serious bids. It is just the final play in a scheme set in motion last year.
I’m a little concerned that they are including protection for all previous and present directors as part of concluding this action though. Not sure that can be right?
New ferrari for art now deal is done
Looks that way, I'm a bit puzzled why the CAG hasn't sort an injunction against this process given the evidence collected with regard to, at a bare minimum, the negligence of the directors and the false informatiin contained within the affidavits.
Additonally, AVO Page 24/25 ".... nothing in this paragraph shall waive... any claim with respect to any act or omission that is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have constituted actual fraud, wilful misconduct or gross negligence"
Surely the CAG have enough to at least make
the Judge aware of the concerns raised about management misconduct?
Probably for undisclosed sum no one will ever know.