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.
Stas20 - that's a great idea. They're owed £12m, we're owed around £11m according to Mr Cotter, and we've got a better idea of exactly what they did to defraud us all due to the time spent by all of us investigating this.
BP and the CAG together would get some well needed media attention i'm sure Summit and Arthur would rather do without.
The judge questioned BP advocate as to why their objection was extremely late. That suggests they either missed something glaring (unlikely), or something changed at the last minute. No, we do not know what.
The fact that BP raised a point of law in the process means it is open to reversal as that is, as far as I recall, one of the only routes in halting the current process.
The judge is opening himself up whilst conveniently assisting the scammers…
SN, no opportunity available to do so.
Stas, thank you. We are already looking at all avenues. Been a busy day (again!).
We demand that General meeting that was promise by PK Indeed'' SHAREBEL'' there is no reason why we shouldn't get one
as it form part of his discloser restructuring statement to the court, but if we now have an objection by another interested party as to this unfair asset sale to the lenders and was planned from the start , then it look like there might be some back tracking'' and that fly in the ointment we was hoping for..
good news indeed'' and a slim chance for us shareholders
Regards
RBM - did the CAG raise any objections?
The contact person for BP Energy Company listed in the document is Derek Pontin. He is associated with Dentons Canada LLP, the law firm representing BP Energy Company in this matter. Derek Pontin can be reached at the following contact information:
Email: derek.pontin@dentons.com
Phone: (403) 268 7015
Fax: (403) 268-3100
He is designated as the point of contact for matters related to the bench brief submitted by BP Energy Company.
SN, We’ve been trying to find that out. On the face of it, no appeal process mentioned. If there’s a way, I’m sure BO will be all over it.
RBM that was a serious question as regards recruiting BP, I think there might be merit in Cotter contacting BP and bringing them up to speed with what we know and if they might wish to join the fight, particularly as based on the below, they are now also being shafted?
BP Energy Company's main objections to the proposed Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) are as follows:
1. Prejudice to BP's Interests: BP argues that the proposed AVO is prejudicial to its interests because it seeks to sanction a preference of one creditor over another of equivalent seniority. The order fails to meet the requirements of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and further fails to meet the criteria for the extinguishment of third-party interests.
2. Failure to Meet Statutory Requirements: BP contends that the proposed AVO fails to meet the applicable statutory requirements for approval under the CCAA. It highlights section 36(6) of the CCAA, which stipulates that proceeds from the sale of assets must stand in place and stead of the assets, with security attaching to the proceeds with equivalent priority. BP argues that the proposed AVO does not adhere to this requirement, as it directs proceeds to a singular creditor, thereby undermining the legislation.
3. Violation of Common Law Principles: BP asserts that the proposed AVO also fails common law tests, particularly in terms of fairness and equity. It cites the Soundair factors, which include considerations of whether sufficient effort has been made to obtain the best price, whether the interests of all parties have been considered, and whether the process has been fair. BP argues that the sale process was flawed, with efforts to market the COPL assets being limited, and the process stifling participation without delivering any consideration back to BP.
4. Reordering of Priorities: BP objects to the proposed reordering of priorities in insolvency proceedings, which it views as contrary to legal principles and prejudicial to its position as a senior secured creditor. It argues that allowing certain creditors to lift their pre-filing debt to a priority position ahead of other existing claims is akin to a rollup, which is prohibited by section 11.2 of the CCAA.
Overall, BP contends that the proposed AVO fails to meet legal requirements and common law principles, and it advocates for the rejection of the application.
Can it be appealed?
It was a virtual court hearing .
CAG were on the call. Subject to a couple of clarifications, the AVO was granted with a conclusion date of 17th June.
The BP situation was very strange, leaving their objection until the last minute, as though surprised.
Could the sale be halted by any chance?
A quick summary of the bench brief of BP
The document provided is a bench brief submitted by BP Energy Company in response to an application by Canadian Overseas Petroleum Limited (COPL) seeking an Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) with respect to a Stalking Horse Purchase Agreement. The document outlines the facts of the case, including the debt owed by COPL to various parties, the proposed sale process, and the interests of different creditors.
BP argues that the proposed AVO is unsupportable at law and prejudicial to its interests, as it seeks to prioritize one creditor over another of equivalent seniority. The document highlights legal and common law requirements for approving such orders, including considerations of fairness, creditor consultation, and the reasonableness of the sale process.
Ultimately, BP concludes that the proposed AVO fails to meet statutory requirements and common law tests. It asserts that rejecting the proposed AVO would open up various reasonable alternatives for COPL's restructuring, including extending the going concern, preserving employment, and enterprise.
The matter pertains to Court File Number 2401-03404 in the Court of King's Bench of Alberta, with the judicial center in Calgary. The document is filed by Dentons Canada LLP on behalf of BP Energy Company, with Derek Pontin listed as the contact person.
The document is structured with sections covering Introduction, Facts, Issues, Law and Argument, and Conclusion, and it includes references to relevant legal authorities and a schedule listing entities involved in the matter.
Overall, the bench brief presents BP Energy Company's arguments against the proposed AVO and advocates for the rejection of the application.
Apparently PK wrote to a shareholder this on 8/4/2024 and NG KSV was copied in
PK wrote
‘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’ and
‘Indications of value are due within 10 ten days so that will give insight i to actual value and from indications this company will likely not be public going forward’
NG responded to the shareholder with this comment in response to above
‘This is precisely correct. The market will speak to value‘
Unbelievable right well it absolutely did not! Also he said 137 in the affadvit?? So do we get a 2nd go then now BP are not happy with this. IMHO DYOR
Maybe BP want to join our fight, they certainly have deep pockets to assist.
RBM, maybe get Mr. Cotter on the blower to BP.
All adds in supporting our case of a rushed asset theft.
Saint yes this has always been a question never answered and bloody annoyed me, I mean come on how quick it all was
‘PK and Province REPLY to Arthur and Tom Dec 19th accepting the gig so they obviously contacted him weeks or months before the JV pulled the plug.‘
Well now looks like BP might just fight back and unwind this quick sale SHB nonsense as they are arguing against it! IMHO DYOR
Target no.1 for the legal team - find that potential purchaser, they are now a witness.
Well BP are not happy basically saying all the things we have been saying that the process was far too short! Look at this -
‘The efforts to market the COPL assets were focused on a defined pool of recipients. A press release was issued, but not a solicitation. No general solicitation was made through relevant industry publications, so the entirety of the marketing pool was limited to the targeted recipients.
(b) The solicitation period was very short. This is not uncommon in CCAA proceedings, due to prevailing constraints, but the fact it’s common, to run shorter processes, does not reduce the importance of ensuring effectiveness. In this case, interested parties were afforded very little time to discover and assess a complex operational package, with a notional floor value exceeding $55MM.
(c) BP was advised by at least one potential purchaser that he made inquiries within the solicitation period and received no response.‘ ‘
Unbelievable and yet believable that they dd not respond! IMHO DYOR
SteveV - it doesn't look like scheming to you?
Ok, just on the basic timings this stinks. 15 months of DD and a LOI whilst £m's raised to upgrade BFU but not delineate CC (or did they, 2 undisclosed wells?).
Continued use of Anavio but no equity raise with shareholders (written into the contract - Robert Brant, sterling work) and then it all falls down.
But, and here's the kicker, the JVP jumps ship Dec 18th, Summit issue default notice on Dec 20th, PK and Province REPLY to Arthur and Tom Dec 19th accepting the gig so they obviously contacted him weeks or months before the JV pulled the plug.
Why did Summit, with first lien debt against the assets, allow Arthur to sign up and keep returning to death spiral financing? The bonds could have been bought out but instead they all allowed this to happen. All of them.
Yankee a quick peruse looks like they BP want it refused and not approve the AVO for the SHB?
‘18. Should the Proposed AVO be approved?
19. It is submitted the Proposed AVO fails to meet the applicable statutory and common law requirements for a vesting order, particularly in view of the attempted extinguishment of BP’s senior creditor position.
20. The requested relief must be refused, and COPL may pursue various reasonable alternatives in its restructuring path.‘
I like the end bit! IMHO DYOR
Does anyone not think it is very odd that neither the company or PK who both got the shorting information (that guy who highlighted it on here was truly terrific) but didn’t contact the authorities in Canada or UK? PK amended the affadvit application slightly to include but that’s all there was no actual full detail. He told one shareholder the following in response to asking if they had informed the regulators of this shorting action which I find quite shocking! He was afterall interim CEO at the time. I think this shows the measure of him and to think once I thought he would be the saviour!
‘Anavio is not the senior secured lender, the stalking horse bidder or actively participating in the sales process. If you have concerns with their prior behavior you should pursue them yourself. ‘
that says it all doesn’t it. This is why we absolutely need to get that general meeting back on asap. We should all be emailing him and asking, nay demanding! IMHO DYOR
New affidavits and associated documentation recently added.
Very brief read of affidavit from BP representative (K.J. Anderson) and subsequent reply from PK seems to indicate claim and counter claim.
Over to those with greater knowledge than I to elaborate.