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.
Before I sign off for the night, can I clarify that I never said BP would be a poor ally, merely that we may have slightly different goals. It’s not black and white. We will continue to talk to all parties who could help us reach our goals.
‘I do want my my back but would accept a lot less back if I knew the whole truth and if there was wrong doing I would trade the money to see some action on individuals or organisations. ‘
As John McEnroe would say ‘ you cannot be serious’ what a ridiculous statement
RBM, you guys are involved and have more detail than me so currently trust any decision you / mr cotter feel is appropriate as when you have leas information (me) it impossible to suggest a direction.
My personal view is this BP involvement later is just another direction others after coming at it compared to the route of class action given the different requirements both parties have. However if a company like BP feel there is reason to object then it only helps support the class action process at some stage in some of “our” arguments.
I do want my my back but would accept a lot less back if I knew the whole truth and if there was wrong doing I would trade the money to see some action on individuals or organisations.
Keep up the great work and hopefully one day some of us in the fringes can help support more
Ryan 100% agree.
Get the process stopped, BP have flagged the SISP process does not stand up to scrutiny and fails in law too.
Get the asset sold by all means, but it needs to be fair value., not a continuation of the current scam.
None of the above stops a subsequent class action.
Apologies, I’ll refrain from saying anything on an open forum such as this in future, it’s impossible to do so without questions being asked or assumptions being made that we’d be foolish to answer publically. It is not black and white, and it is certainly not as simple a situation as some seem to have convinced themselves.
We are working relentlessly to navigate a very complex situation, we will continue to do so. Be careful where the narrative is led.
Finwittrader - I tend to agree. There's just an undertone of suspicion being subtly injected which is why i posted the SRA link earlier.
It would be good to get clarity on any Setford involvement and the insurance against a potential lost case as given the true size of the asset value i don't trust any of the participants over the pond to act fairly.
The Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon turned up to a flaring meeting to rubber stamp an application and Judge Sidnell worked a golf swing away from COPL headquarters at Rose LLP, both on 5th Ave SW Calgary. Also, the courthouse were the AVO was heard is on 6th Ave SW Calgary 3 mins walk from COPL HQ.
Could there be social connections between the COPL executives and the legal establishment in Calgary? I'd say it's more likely than not.
Where's TIA1 and they're relentless brilliant info churning gone? Could be useful about now.
RBM, not being funny but I have lost thousands in this. I don't agree with your view, If this can be stopped now and a legitimate SISP is put in place (and not by KSV) surely that is better than doing nothing and proceeding with a class action that could take years. We can still do a class action if the new SISP does not deliver to shareholders. COPL, KSV, Summit and maybe Anavio are in cohorts on this to allow summit to get the assets as cheap as possible.
BP have stated that the solicitation process was flawed, KSV didn't contact enquiries, they didn't give enough time for the process, the actual documentation they sent out was laughable, no mention of how much oil we have or its worth, its as if all the oil has disappeared. What's in the DATA room, have COPL been selective as too what's in there, who knows. All I know is this process needs to be stopped beforehand rather than letting it go through and then spending years trying to recover our money that may or may not be successful.
Kenneth Anderson stated in his closing statement on the affidavit
'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 '
'the process in this case was chilling and ineffective'
BP know what we have and I think they are being careful with what they say. Our NAV was close to £500 million without the fed deep discovery, add that on and who knows what its really worth.
Notice how the same posters who were trolling this board for months have started returning again? I’ve heard today that two of the key targets for the class action have already been feeling the strain of the announcements.
Then suddenly they’re all back like a pack of hounds, doing what they always did. Why don’t they want people to join the class action I wonder?
Michael Cotter won the large case versus Yorkshire bank and others. He has a strong media profile, strong history of working with the financial authorities and is an expert in Class actions. It’s no surprise that they’re on him like a pack as they’re sweating it.
I couldn’t care less that he’s now got a new firm - I followed my employment law expert when she set up her new firm as she was the best around.
Sharebel "feel very let down by him and even KSV..." insolvency experts = vultures who want a quick deal and maximum fees, nothing more. The word "restructuring" and similar blurb is just PC stuff to make people feel comfortable and go away, while they pillage whatever to pieces. KSV and similar are simply wolves dressed in sheep's clothing. Don't be surprised at what's happened once they were appointed.
"..BP might not be ideal partners with regards litigation..." what is our primary objective, to get our money back asap or create a litigation case? If BP's objections help undo the sale, why not get into bed with them?
A fair point RBM, but in seeking to stop the AVO due to the speed at which it's being expedited, BP will either provide or need evidence of how SISP process was being unfairly curtailed and that can help both groups in their different aims.
Surely its better to slow or stop the AVO at this point as it casts doubt on the whole process and the true intentions of those involved. Something a future Judge would have to take account of.
Stas - i'd say contact BP with a brief of what you've collated so far. If they bite, bring in the CAG to see if there can be mutual benefit for our differing goals.
RBM - But surely if as is one of their (BP) suggested remedies to have a longer SISP process and sale process then we may have some chance of actually getting the price and true value of our assets in a sale to a 3rd party rather than this quick fire round which has demonstrated, was not an appropriate timescale in which to do so. IMHO DYOR
That’s very true on the media front! I think their (BP) legal objections are totally valid to the AVO - that as well as being unfair to them it was indeed too short time period for such huge assets to find a buyer. I’m intrigued what PK will respond with to this as we have all said there wasn’t enough time to sort. Also am I alone in feeling they are simply wanting to get it all done and shout next. I honestly thought when we eventually heard that PK had been appointed to restructure that there would be better solutions to work through instead it just feels like a cookie cutter approach and feel very let down by him and even KSV. IMHO DYOR
Cheers, saintnick, I agree there must of been a potential JVP, it was in several RNS and all the usual suspects at one point had their names at the bottom of these RNS, Mulholland, Richardson, Cowan, Gaffney.
Bring on the Class Action.
Folks, BP could indeed be a great friend to have, but let’s bear in mind that our goals and our targets could prove quite different. They are seeking repayment of monies advanced and secured against assets being transferred to new ownership. That is quite different to our situation as defrauded shareholders. They would primarily target Summit and the SISP process. Whilst the SISP process has done us no favours, our issues started way, way prior to Summit and the SISP taking central stage. Good to befriend, but BP might not be ideal partners with regards litigation. It’s a complex situation that has to be navigated very carefully.
Or maybe the judge is a little junior and is overwhelmed by the number of high profile lawyers there set up just to baffle. It happens!
….. but it was made at the meeting and not after judgement, ergo it makes it no less valid. A bit frustrating nonetheless if you are trying to shut it down quickly but a point of law is a point of law regardless. I’m actually a bit surprised he’s effectively joined the steam roller club.
Anyone know if Arthur shares the same car/golf/country club as this judge..
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.