Listen to our latest Investing Matters Podcast episode 'Uncovering opportunities with investment trusts' with The AIC's Richard Stone 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.
Looks like the CCAA proceedings have to be approved in Delaware USA also.
New doc added under chapter 15 proceedings motion materials DI 57.
Looks like this was to be done on the 21st May but has been rescheduled to a hearing on 5th June.
https://www.ksvadvisory.com/experience/case/canadian-overseas-petroleum
With also regard to the appeal by BP against the AVO agreeing the SH bid, looks like next sitting/earliest sitting for Appeal court to hear their appeal is 10th June so as the completion is target 31st May (unlikely time frame however) and stay is until 7th June what will happen? IMHO
It will either still go through or the judges might actually wake up and question what’s gone on here
Maybe BP have phoned a few politicians. To offer a contribution to their campaign funds in this election year.
BP are certainly shining a light into this murkyness. Albeit for selfish reasons....
They highlighted no promotion of the sale.
They highlight that enquiries were not responded to...
They highlighted the quick nature of recent happenings...
Hey ho!
Our cornerstone investor shorted our stock over 90 times.
Why
Also plenty of documents for an Appeal request by BP too. Apologies if already discussed. Filed under motions on May 14th.
Well this will add another bit of meat to the already meaty bones of our case 👌
Is there any chance of this coming back or is it gone for good
Angus, do you perform some sort of an overnight internal system reset?
Thanks for that RYAN... the court say'' this is a substantive objection by BP ? and also say the lenders have got to stop calling this CCAA DIP financing as it is not a C11 ? it should be known as interim financing ?
- I’ll text him if he uses the word “DIP” financing.
20 We completely understand and we -- you know, we understand exactly what you’re saying
21 about the adequate protection and the provisions and the US Bankruptcy Code, that in the
22 context of this case, because it is a chapter 15, are not invoked in the same way they would
23 be in a chapter 11. So I think that’s a very important point and a good one, so we’ll continue
24 to ensure we use appropriate terminology going forward. Thank you..
BP was frozen out of the sale process IMO, in favour of the lenders BID and would have put in a higher bid by the looks of it''
I'm still hopeful that if BP continue along this path they will stop this steal and save us all'' so the next big date to look out for is June 7th
ATB
June will be an interesting month.
Jumpy frog you have certainly told some lies over the years another new name on here
Were not BP simply attempting to buy the assets of COPL, not COPL itself. So they could have potentially put in a much higher bid than Summit but shareholders would still end up with nothing if there is no surplus on all the debt.
Steve'' it look like summit is trying to get away with a $500m asset, for £13.5m in so call DIP'' only found in a C11 case that the judge pointed out'' and it was all done quickly to try and get rid of shareholders and stop BP from getting there hands on it at a better price... I mean even if it was a 50m offer shareholders would have retain £10m ? the way i see it Bond holders have already made there money from shorting'' and we only have $40m debt RE: ZAK VIDEO on CAG website
Maidit, no sorry I don't think that's right.
If BP were offering £50m for the assets there would be nothing left for shareholders. All the other creditors would still have to be paid including the bondholders before shareholders saw anything.
And of course with all the assets gone there is no COPL.
I certainly think any payment now from sale would hinder us. Shareholders would then struggle to claim more money through a class action. Imagine the fury if the sale of assets meant shareholders got 1p back. If they bought at 30p they would be furious as that would pretty much end the class action.
Steve, the bondholders have already been told just like us that they may not get anything back so i don't think you need to add them in your post m8'' and I'm just thinking out loud about that £50m as the lowest ball figure as we know the asset have not been independently valued by the court, but toted going back to ZAK CAG video to be at least $500m, and we still don't know what summit offer to clinch the deal apart from the £11m and the £2.5m in new financing ?
regards
"Imagine the fury if the sale of assets meant shareholders got 1p back. If they bought at 30p they would be furious as that would pretty much end the class action."
The class action would not be finished, far from it, any kind of token payback would in all likelihood actually create more anger. The class action is now independent of the outcome of the KSV asset theft.
People need to stop thinking about hopefully recouping 'SOME' money as if 1 or 2 pence a share would be acceptable when indeed some only have low averages, after they took advantage of the sp, post bondholder devestation. Indeed many that invested at 30p expected, rightly to see a handsome profit from that investment on the back of one of the largest onshore finds in a decade, in a safe politically stable country.
The class action has started and it has to be seen through for 'justice', justice from the injustice of a bunch of immoral lowlifes that sought to 'use' investors like throw away tools to feather their own nests.
Justice needs to be done and seen to be done on two fronts, financial and moral, financial to recoup the losses from investment, loss of opportunity and life hurt. And justice in terms of publicity, shaming and public recognition of the wrong these directors and their accomplices have sought by fines, disqualification and prison where appropriate.
No, I'm pleased to say that the scum that brought this wrong to us, brought the consequences of this action on themselves, they were warned and pleaded with by many, they sought through their arrogance to dismiss us all out of hand, I now wish the very worst that justice can offer on their heads.
Millholland thinks we are the non deserving, or as he would say,. " them that didn't earn it", pretty hard to earn anything on a fixed game, were gonna reveal the game they tried to fix to the world.
100% correct Stas20. Thanks for that.
Rodney what is your views on the appeal by BP, in summary, the legal memorandum filed by BP Energy Company (BPEC) in the Court of Appeal of Alberta seeks permission to appeal an Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) granted by Justice K. Yamauchi on April 24, 2024, concerning the restructuring of Canadian Overseas Petroleum Limited (COPL) under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The key points in the memorandum that jump out are:
BPEC challenges the AVO, which approves transactions under the Stalking Horse Purchase Agreement (SHPA) involving COPL's assets.
Points in Issue
Legal Errors: BPEC argues that Justice Yamauchi made errors in law by:
Incorrectly applying section 36(6) of the CCAA, which relates to the sale of assets free and clear of encumbrances.
Misapplying principles from relevant case law (e.g., Royal Bank v. Soundair Corp, Third Eye Capital Corporation v. Dianor Resources Inc).
Factual Errors: BPEC contends that the judge wrongly concluded that BPEC's actions were intended to delay and disrupt the sales process.
Arguments
Merit of the Appeal: The appeal is prima facie meritorious, meaning it is arguable and not frivolous.
Significance: The issues raised are significant to the practice of insolvency law and to the specific CCAA proceedings.
Impact on the Process: BPEC asserts that the appeal will not unduly hinder the restructuring process but rather seeks to ensure lawful and equitable treatment of creditors.
Interim Stay of the AVO: BPEC requests a stay of the AVO pending the outcome of the appeal to prevent irreversible harm to its interests.
Relief Requested
BPEC seeks permission to appeal the AVO and an interim stay of the order until the appeal is resolved.
Conclusion
BP Energy Company argues that the approval of the AVO by the lower court contains significant legal and factual errors, particularly in the application of section 36(6) of the CCAA and established insolvency principles. The appeal, if permitted, will address these issues and ensure that the rights of secured creditors like BPEC are adequately protected.
Importantly BP Energy has expressed concerns regarding the handling of the Canadian Overseas Petroleum Limited (COPL) insolvency process by KSV Advisory. In their memorandum of argument filed on May 14, 2024, BP Energy raises several issues with KSV's management and decisions as the court-appointed monitor.
BP Energy is challenging the fairness and transparency of the Sales and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) managed by KSV Advisory. BP alleges that KSV's actions may not have adequately protected the interests of all stakeholders, particularly creditors like BP. They argue that the process lacked sufficient clarity and may have been biased towards certain outcomes, potentially undermining the overall fairness of the proceedings.
These concerns are central to BP Energy's motion to appeal and seek amendments to the current process to ensure a more balance
Part 2
and equitable resolution.
BP are emphasizing the need for greater oversight and a more inclusive approach to decision-making during the restructuring efforts of COPL. I get the feeling they would like to say more however their mistrust is obvious in that they are asking for;
Increased Transparency: BP Energy wants a more transparent process in the Sales and Investment Solicitation Process (SISP) to ensure all stakeholders are fully informed and their interests are considered.
Fair Treatment of Creditors: They are asking for a reassessment to ensure equitable treatment of all creditors, including themselves, under the current restructuring plan.
Oversight and Accountability: Enhanced oversight measures to ensure KSV Advisory's decisions are impartial and in the best interest of all parties involved (KSV Advisory).
Fundamentally, seeking increased oversight over KSV Advisory's management of the insolvency process of Canadian Overseas Petroleum Limited (COPL). BP Energy's primary concerns revolve around ensuring transparency and impartiality in the restructuring proceedings. Specifically, BP Energy is requesting the appointment of an independent monitor or a third-party observer to oversee KSV's activities. This measure aims to prevent any potential biases or conflicts of interest that might arise given KSV's central role in the process.
Additionally, BP Energy has suggested implementing periodic reporting requirements, where KSV would provide detailed updates on their actions and decisions. This would facilitate greater accountability and allow stakeholders to be more informed and involved in the process. The goal of these requests is to enhance the integrity and fairness of the restructuring, ensuring that the interests of all parties, including creditors like BP Energy, are adequately protected.
It looks like BP are open to challenging both KSV, the process and the Judge!
Lol.
A new independent monitor, needed to monitor the previous independent monitor nominated by the stalking horse bidder...
Who incidentally, was the CEO of the company requested to be put in place by our senior lender...
Is this nepotism?
Not sure about nepotism but seems more likely a setup. Did no one else wonder how it was that KSV were supposedly bought in as emergency measure and somehow in the time it took to say, Art'll fix it, KSV had produced documents of hundreds of pages, affidavits, motion materials, SISP process docs and creditor listing and the list goes on. All produced in a timeframe designed suspiciously some might say, pre-planned, and carefully worded and iterated, over likely several months, when of course the shareholders knew nothing of these, plans. All conducted with absolute zero transparency, or otherwise hidden to support a speedy process with minimal time for anyone not involved in the scam to read, let alone produce any kind of objection or defence documents. BP have a strong point, and with the way the stalking horse bid has been conducted BP are rightly angry.
Stas. I nominate you for the CAG spokesperson.
Yes it was indicated from P Kravits affidavit that he had coms with the company well in advance of his appointment.
I recall that the SL wanted an appointment made of a restructuring specialist. What is not clear for me was who gave the appointment to Peter Kravitz? Summit or COPL (Richardson -Anavio).
Crikey, imagine you had inside information...you would of opened a 50% short position perhaps....hmmm.