Maybe of Interest to you ..... ?30 Apr 2024 20:06
From the COPL BB
(Shareholders have formed an Action group: CAG)
COPL have MASSIVE OIL (Circa: 1 Billion Barrels) discovery in Wyoming, however company has been run down 99.% in past 2 years.
- See Copied "STAS20"note below
RE: KSV Advisory - New Documents Added
25/04/2024 - 18:10
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.
(Apologies - it is a long thread, but quite interesting)
Sign In
Follow the stocks
