The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen 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.
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.
I don't think the demise of the JV and subsequent events is that Machiavellian.
I think Summit were waiting for a sizable JV amount so as to pay back some/all of their loan.
The JV were probably offering way less than was hoped for and Summit scuppered any deal which would have been great for COPL but not for Summit because the JV would be taking away some of Summits secured assets
Alfresco - re your 13.30 post, there might be a 3rd solicitor in our team, James Wilkes.
Just checked on Mr Barry and the SRA have nothing issued against him. All 3 listed are regulated people with no regulatory decisons published and all linked to Setfords.
https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/organisation/?sraNumber=8006648
Green boxed
Adnauseum - tbh, i think it was real otherwise issuing the LOI notification in July 23 was just plain stupidity. With all the effort put in to release shareholders of their dues, a mistake like that seems unlikely.
On that basis, 15 months of due diligence by the JVP suggests there is something there hence all the cloak and daggers to bring COPL down, or rather just remove the shareholders.
Subpoena all involved and we'll get the truth. If AM, RG et al made it up then get them back to Blighty under the bilateral UK MLA agreement we have with Canada as these crimes were committed primarily against UK investors regardless of where the company is incorporated.
B3ast, congratulations, you win stupidest post of the day.
Most of us were 99.5% down in January, pointless selling, something could come up and it has.
Class Action.
B3east
Thanks mate - il will do the complete opposite of what you say or suggest.
Lloydy
Their company website at ceclegal.co.uk is a strange one, never seen that before.
The domain name itself was first registered on 02-02-2024 so probably soon after when the CAG contacted them and specifically for this Class Action, is this normal?
B3ast, hero we should have all listened to you!!!
And the below on 11th Jan
""4. Within 45 days, an agreement with the senior lender on a process and milestones for either a comprehensive sale of the Company's US assets, a foreclosure of the Company's equity interests in its US assets or a "take out offer" in an amount satisfactory to the senior lender."
IMO there's a high chance of shareholders losing everything here.
I wouldn't average down, I wouldn't buy in even for a punt. It's like catching a falling knife"
I posted the below on 16th Jan - why didn't people listen?!
"The writings is on the wall here, shareholders are getting massively diluted and they would likely need further liquidity down the line. There was a nice bounce to be had for anyone who swung trade but the overall trajectory here is down"