Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. 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 fully intend to take up Mr Cotter's offer. Whatever happens, this criminal activity needs to be investigated. I particularly like the PR element of his campaign. Those characters like to operate in the shadows. If there's one thing they don't like, it is the bright light of publicity being shone on them.
Denarius1, this looks interesting. Please post again with their letterhead, contact details etc, so CAG can follow up if necessary. Thanks.
Acknowledgment of your Complaint
In the matter of the proceeding of Canadian Overseas Petroleum
Limited (COPL), et al. Estate file number: 25-095449
FYI I received this yesterday .
This letter is to acknowledge receipt by our office of your correspondence dated March 17, 2024 addressed to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Arif Virani, wherein you outline concerns in the above estate.
The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy (OSB), under the overall oversight of the Court, exercises independent statutory supervision of all matters relating to insolvency proceedings in Canada. As such, your request was forwarded to the Major Cases unit for investigation.
Given the role of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, Elisabeth Lang, as a potential decision maker under subsection 14.01(1) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (BIA), the Deputy Superintendent, Integrity and Enforcement, Kirti Manek, will be overseeing this matter.
Therefore, Jinny Kim, Senior Regulatory Investigator, jinny.kim@ised-isde.gc.ca, will undertake an investigation of the issues and reply directly to you within 30 business days of the present. Should the investigation require more time, you will be advised within that period.
The OSB in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness and the provisions of the Privacy Act, supports the principle that the party being investigated should have an opportunity to respond to the concerns raised. Therefore, should the need arise, your identity may be disclosed and the content shared may include the unedited version of the complaint. Furthermore, when the
Reference Number: 24-005085
OSB needs to contact other parties (e.g., LIT/Monitor, debtor or creditor) to investigate the concerns raised, the information you have provided may also be shared with them.
Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
Just a few words to put things in context. At Hurricane Energy, I don't think that legals were as complex as they are here (and ours have only just got started in relation to our Class Action). There are reasons I mention this. First, Hurricane announced their legal fees back in 2021 - around £17 million. Secondly, the legal fees already accrued over the last few months by the various parties will be many millions of dollars based on the above. CAG has Michael Cotter working on a no win no fee basis but with a hard fee payable for KC or KC equivalent in the UK, US and Canada. Michael Cotter has been generous with his time given that the hard fee we have paid him to date is tiny. He will be arranging Zoom calls shortly and welcomes any questions you might have. He does not want to work on your behalf until and unless you are happy to proceed with him. There is no obligation and he has been quite clear about that. The alternative to working on a hybrid basis as we are is to appoint a solicitor on a fee basis. The cost of this would be enormous - running into tens of thousands very quickly and beyond. Most of us are not up for this at the moment and for similar reasons most likely. Please take Michael up on his offer - attend the Zoom calls and ask as many questions as you like. Don't proceed with Michael unless you are happy to do so.
Whatever the judge said I’m sure bp won’t let it lie. How can he waive it through with so much noise going on, beggars belief, surely their job is to ensure this kind of deal is legit and there is no wrongdoing . He’s got to be aware that something is amiss , I don’t get it ?
Crowd funding is a possibility, although all should be a lot clearer once the zoom calls take place. hNW individuals, unless embroiled in it would be a harder sell, but as momentum and PR kicks in, a possibility.
He did in the context of Spectrum and in the context of BP being aware of the situation in good time. The Judge seemed heavily reliant on the submissions of the parties and their representatives. Again I refer to Stas and his sound remarks pertaining to why parties such as PK and KSV submit documents of over 1000 pages. What purpose does that serve? What is the motive? Justice Yamauchi clearly stated that he had reviewed the brief and even said that he 'didn't have the means' to print off all the materials.
Since your around.....is cag discussing crowd funding to make sure we have plenty for stage one and are cag approaching any hnwi.....I know carlton will help with that after stage 1 but any thoughts before.
There was a poster here who said his mate was worth 100m......people like that who want to right some wrongs or generally see some w....s get their comeuppence?
Did he actually ask that Rodney ?
CAG addressed the errors and omissions in PK Affidavit 1 directly with the Counsel of KSV (the Monitor).
Notwithstanding this, the sales process went ahead based on a description of COPL's assets which, Inter Alia, paid no mention to the 'billion barrels of oil' as referred to by Stas20. Yet Justice Yamauchi was particularly concerned with timeliness and veracity. He queried Counsel several times on this. What exactly is going on here?
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. ‘