George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video 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.
I think the best outcome for us at present would be along the same lines as bp requested. A new sisp with full disclosure as to what copl have.
'The debtors own and operate SUBSTANTIAL oil and gas holdings which must be adequately exposed for a time and at a price floor that will stimulate the greatest possible interest '
If the true value is exposed from the data room, this could sell for £500 million plus, everyone gets their money back, the protagonists avoid jail but sacrifice the prize. If the assets aren’t there then we go knocking at Arthur’s door for fraud and everyone else involved
Stas thanks for posting that PK statement link again, the bit i was always interested in was this part'' mark ??
(vii) postponing the requirement for any future annual or other meeting of the
shareholders of COPL during these CCAA proceedings, and extending the
time limit to call and hold such annual or other meeting of shareholders ?? until
and after the conclusion of these CCAA proceedings; ??
i still want to know if that statement still stand ??
regards
Wonder if the FCA/Stock Exchange(s) would be more interested now if they knew BP was caught out in this ?
Considering the alternatives he'd probably win by a landslide!
Saint 👍
RBM - as it seems BP have been hoodwinked along with the rest of us, a thought occurred that might be nothing but who are COPL's lawyers at present?
McCarthy Tetrault and Robert Brant were in the thick of it but I remember someone saying they had been paid in shares. If true, that might indicate them being shafted like the rest of us.
Does client confidentiality or litigation privilege still exist if you don't get paid, or were paid by alternative means that were part of potentially fraudulent activity? One to ponder.
Stas should run for President....;-)
Gets my vote!!
It’s knowledge passed on during the SISP process. Nothing in the AVO process exempts any party should actual fraud, gross misconduct or wilful negligence be proven in a court of law. Advice taken.
RBM - But they try, look at this for example;
"1.8 Knowledge
Any reference to the knowledge of (i) a COPL Entity, means the actual knowledge, after reasonable inquiry, of Peter Kravitz, Arthur Millholland, Tyler Johnson, Gabe D’Arthenay and Elizabeth Millholland (who, in each case, for the sake of clarity and avoidance of doubt, shall have no personal liability or obligations regarding such knowledge), and (ii) a Purchaser, means the actual knowledge, after reasonable inquiry, of Patrick Murphy (who, for the sake of clarity and avoidance of doubt, shall have no personal liability or obligations regarding such knowledge)."
So what does this mean, anything I put in the affidavit is considered 'knowledge' and irrespective on whether that knowledge is correct or not matter not as "in each case, for the sake of clarity and avoidance of doubt, shall have no personal liability or obligations regarding such knowledge" - just riddled with ridiculousness!
Maid
Bod does NOT have ‘immunity from any legal actin, signed off by the judge.’ That clause states this to safeguard the AVO, but is followed by, or similar, unless actual fraud, gross misconduct or wilful negligence can be proven in a court of law. Full house, I’d argue.
Just as an example of how COPL and KSV will use what they learn from these forums to their advantage have a look at how
they have had the audacity to reference a twitter posts by the CAG as if to justify the enormity of 'their' marketing campaign.
https://www.ksvadvisory.com/docs/default-source/insolvency-case-documents/canadian-overseas-petroleum/ccaa-proceedings/motion-materials/copl---affidavit-of-peter-kravitz-affirmed-april-18-2024.pdf?sfvrsn=de0eb286_3
"the CAG stated that they were in the process of contacting potential bidders who may be interested in participating in the bidding process. A copy of this social media post from X by the CAG is attached as Exhibit “G” hereto."
Which by the way is on the final page, Page 248 and wrongly labelled as Exhibit "H" - indeed in fact the whole document has incorrect labelling in relation to Exhibits and what they show, but it shows that they will try to use whatever we say here or on other social media to advance their own aims, walls have ears!
Who knows ED'' it may be cheaper to get the lawyers to draft a letter to BP offering them shareholders support'' than to fight the BOD that has already written themselves immunity from any legal action ? signed of by the Judge, BWTFDIK I'm just a small shareholder that have been caught a few times holding that falling knife we all dread CINE NNN MTV to name a few, so these days i can only offer my humble opinion through experience after years of losses in these casino's, but i also had some good win at the same time, so these days i don't let it get to me...
Regards..
Crikey I missed this thanks Stas will take a look at the flyer. Also on 8/4 he said to a shareholder apparently 160 sent but affadavit says 137 - why? IMHO DYOR
From the email to a shareholder 8/4/2024
‘We have undertaken extensive reach out efforts including sending over 160 teasers to both strategic and financial potential buyers and the data set is robust for potential purchasers ‘
From the court docs submitted 18/4/2024
‘15. Promptly following the granting of the SISP Order, the Applicants reached out to 137 different parties to solicit interest in the SISP. When reaching out to such parties, the Applicants provided a teaser letter, a copy of the SISP Order and a form of NDA, along with a summary of the proceedings and link to the Monitor’s website. A copy of the teaser letter is attached as Exhibit “E” hereto. Potential bidders were identified by the Applicants and the Financial Advisor, in consultation with the Monitor, through: (a) (b) (c)
16. extensive research on industry participants, consisting of both financial and strategic parties; discussions with the Applicants’ management and board of directors (the “Board”); and inbound inquiries, both prior to and during these CCAA proceedings, received directly and through the Monitor. ‘
Wadda
You may well be 2nd guessing what has already been done, but we’re not going to broadcast everything we are doing, and with whom, over a public forum. That would not be wise.
RBM,
I couldn't tell from your comment " Mr Denton to get confused due to multiple approaches" whether you had/hadn't contacted them. I don't want to confuse/step on toes whatever, and I very much appreciate what you're doing so thank you. But I just want a good result asap and I feel we should do it now, while things are still being decided, not afterwards when everything has been signed off. Why not get our lawyers to agree some juicy info and you contact Dentons? I'm a cynic when it comes to lawyers, never give them too much control over the agenda. I think you should call Dentons, or arrange a 3 way Zoom-you, lawyers, Dentons. Who knows, a plan may come out of a simple Zoom.
Maidit308 11.38 - Excellent advice and the only sure way to get our money back. Oil is still being produced at 1000 bpd and to lift the SUSPENSION A.S.A.P..
K
Best man for the job imo, can give a comprehensive picture, plus he hates AM as much as me!
Maidit,
Well CAG and Mr Cotter represent the largest combined group of shareholders so it should come from them. But well done to others that have contacted BP's Canadian solicitors. But CAG should now make themselves clear to BP's representative, best to come through Mr Cotter too imo.
Regards,
Ed.
YES'' BP putting a spanner in the works to stop these crooks is the best bit of news we have had in a long while but we still need calm head on how to approach them, with the wealth of information we have amass, without causing a frenzy on here.. although it brings hope, but IMO the best outcome we could ever hope for is for BP to put in a late higher BIB that they cannot refuse'' re focus the CO, and take us out of suspension... and although it sound like bob hope ATM anything can happen.. I think we should leave it up to the CAG to try and make contact in some meaning full way if they think it may help our cause, and i think BP could do with all the help they can get from us, and perhaps will respond, if the help offer from us is done in a lawful meaningful way via the CAG lawyer... depend on cost''
see what happen in the days & weeks ahead as the story unfold, but we should never give up hope of getting a return
GLA
Ok we can assume an approach has been made, it would be easier to be explicit about it though. Let’s shut this silly bickering line down now and continue to move forward on all fronts.
Sharebel,
That certainly would be sensible. There is a common enemy here that has led to this situation and the possible obfuscation of the asset sales process. You would think the basic outcome of this should be the cancellation of the current asset sale and either a fair transparent process to sell the assets for fair value and allow all interested parties time to bid. Certainly the likes of BP taking exception to the AVO leads a ton of weight to the case against what's going on this last 12-18 months. Just when they thought they were home and dry BP steps in! Lets hope CAG and Mr Cotter can capitalize on this fully.
Regards,
Ed.
Stas,
Was just wondering about this i.e. Exhibit E. Would like to understand a little more about the content of the document entitled "Project Copper" pages 106 thru 117 of PK's April 18 affidavit. I've no clue as to its significance or not so all comments, opinions etc gladly welcomed.
Wadda
At what point did I say we had not contacted them? That’s the very point - he’ll be sitting there getting confused as to who is who.
To be fair the lawyer is hardly going to get confused he’s a top lawyer! Also time is of the essence so there’s no harm in getting in contact to get the ball rolling and so hitting the ground running surely? Perhaps CAG or MC can follow up and make contact today then. IMHO