Member Info for RBMInvest

Please refer to the thread headed ‘Invoices’.

When there is something to report, we’ll report it.

There are no further scheduled hearings, at this point.

Extract from a message from MC, FYI:

As to invoices, they’ll all be out early next, we’ve had issues with our payment provider migrating to another firm (all sorted now) - please note, this has not deterred our reviewing of matters that can help the wider claim, whilst we await sending and payment.

Why would it be on hold? Just the opposite!

Colin, you have crystallised loses, therefore actually easier to quantify. There will be no pecking order, a loss is a loss, is a loss. You are on an equal footing with everyone else.

Angus, I thought you’d decided to pull out? There’s always a chance of that, but there are no promises in this game. We have a huge amount of evidence, numerous guilty parties, a focused team and a bloody good lawyer on our side. And a plan.

Some fights are simply worth fighting. This is one of those.

Nice message, thank you.

I know there can be long spells of silence, but there is a team of good people fighting for you. We won’t get everything right, but we’re fighting bloody hard.

It is absolutely NOT over, guys. On the contrary, you’re just watching us gearing up a bit….

We’ll have ‘em.

Read up on Purdue Pharma. We’re also now looking at a far more ‘lucrative’ US jurisdiction, not Canada.

We have a strategy. We’re in a good space.

Harry, they responded with usual lawyer’s blah, blah denials.

Deal done, last minute extension granted. Increased pressure still being applied.

Ryan, we were always committed to fighting for every opportunity open to shareholders, regardless of the likelihood of success with Summit. The door is still open to them. They now own the asset, deal concluded on Friday, but they were granted a last minute extension to ‘tidy things up’. We are exerting extreme pressure still.

***they’ve been fed enough rope!!

SP, that Appendix D has little bearing on our class action, it’s a just a standard lawyer’s response to a few very specific AVO/SISP related ‘suggestions’ and is very narrowly focused. Our class action will have many targets, not just the AVO/SISP. You shouldn’t focus purely on that, just because it’s recent, the target field is far wider than that. Our complaints in this regard are now on court record and we’ve now been fed enough rope….

Part 2

Would they also care to share with the court, under oath, what their plans are, in very broad terms, for said assets? We understand that, many weeks ago, the operational management of the fields was taken over by a Jeffrey Marcel, ex Denbury (now ExxonMobil) and oil major who have an existing CO2 pipeline running less than 20 miles from the COPL assets. Does that not fit very comfortably with CAG’s assertions that this whole process has been willfully and deliberately planned since COPL was shorted to oblivion during 2023? Access to extremely lucrative carbon capture was the prized goal, greed was the clear motivator. This is an asset that attracted a major oil group to offer an advance of more than twice the value of the stalking horse bid in 2023 - but just to secure a joint venture on a small portion of the COPL assets?!! Under oath, could they state that no plans are already in place to either resurrect said joint venture, or to sell the entire assets (directly, or through a third party) to said major oil group, or similar, at a vast profit? If such a plan was in place, does the court see, as CAG does, that this court approved process could have been manipulated, contemptuously, in favour of Summit Partners and to the eradication of all equity held by innocent shareholders?

CAG has made the court aware of other misgivings we hold, in writing, with regard how certain parties have undermined this court process. However, the crux of the matter is ‘Has justice been seen to be served here’? We believe that the answer to that is a very clear ‘NO’.

Lives have been decimated, entire pension pots lost and the investments made by many are, in effect, being stolen - all in the name of corporate greed.

However, even at this late stage, CAG urge Summit to ‘do the right thing’ and include all innocent shareholders in any future development of COPL’s vast assets. If they do not, our shareholders crystallised loses will run to roughly $150M. Ascertainable and punitive damages could prove considerably more.

Positive action on their part would not only be the correct thing to do, but it could turn a potentially prolonged and expensive PR nightmare (through the Purdue precedent) into a glowing PR opportunity for Summit. Wouldn’t that be a novel story? We, loyal COPL shareholders, can help make that happen.

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to address the court.

CAG Statement To Court 19/07/24

Part 1

With the courts permission, we would like to read a two minute statement, on behalf of CAG, The COPL Action Group. We represent over 500 shareholders, collectively holding over 50% of COPL’s current share capital. I am not a lawyer, so please excuse any deviation from court etiquette.

Although in a neighbouring jurisdiction, we’re sure all here are aware of the precedent set in the US Supreme Court several weeks ago in the Purdue Pharma case. Their ruling would clearly suggest, especially whilst dealing with US assets, that a restructuring process can no longer be deemed ‘closed’ without full consultation with all stakeholders. Nor can parties be seen to hide, misrepresent , or manipulate the full value of assets to that process. We believe both of these tenets are pertinent to COPL’s US assets.

One of COPL’s Chief Restructuring Officer’s foremost court duties (he was also COPL’s CEO at the time) was to ‘maximise the value of COPL’s assets’ - that is surely not in dispute? So, whilst in full knowledge of the asset’s TRUE commercial value (as highlighted by the 2023 Joint Venture discussions and oil volumes conservatively verified by Ryder Scott), why did Mr Kravitz fail to focus marketing efforts on the scale of COPL’s huge oil find and it’s absolutely enormous carbon capture potential within his so called ‘marketing material’? It’s akin to selling a classic Ferrari, but advertising it as an old Ford ‘by mistake’- our shop window was, negligently in our view, left empty. Whilst viewed in tandem with the almost non existent time allowed for due diligence (based on cashflow forecasts that have since proven almost laughably inaccurate), is it easy to deduce that there was absolutely no attempt to market these assets with a view to maximising their value? In fact, would the court agree that it would be easy to assume that the whole process was actually geared towards no competitive bids being sought at all, and that the stalking horse was always going to be odds on favourite to win that race, due to some rather blatant race fixing?

Would Summit Partners be willing to tell the court the full amount paid to BP to secure clean title to the assets in question? In other words, what additional investment have they made in an asset beyond, (in their own counsel’s words), ‘the value the market had placed on it’ (a value, let’s not forget, based upon material information being withheld and no time to conduct due diligence)?

Folks, very easy to state that CAG was ‘too late’, but it actually all depends what your goals are.

The judge granted CAG permission to address the court on Friday and statement was delivered. Everything stated is now on court records for MC to use. We will post that statement on hear this afternoon.

Check out the KSV US court documents, particularily Doc 84, Clause 6. The US court recognised the Canadian AVO order, but retains exclusivity of jurisdiction. Any further actions taken involving this case will be addressed by the US court. Therefore, all US Supreme Court Purdue Pharma precedents will be applicable, plus US punitive damages may now be in play. No hiding place.

Hi Ryan

I believe he wanted this wrapped up this week, best get them in asap.

That is the basis of engagement. Take legal counsel in at least 3 jurisdictions, analyse the vast amount of evidence, analyse the likelihood of recompense from numerous parties targeted and then present our strategy based on a no win, no fee basis. In settlements, MC’s fee would be between 10 and 20% of said settlements.

Guarantees? No such thing in this process, hence it’s a personal decision. However, we believe the case is very strong, the evidence extremely damning and that most shareholders involved can see this to be the case. We’re not here to convince people, one way or the other, but simply offer a route for all investors to fight back and win. A HUGE amount of work has gone in to this - and certain parties know this, hence efforts have, and will, be made to derail us. We will not be derailed.