Member Info for RodneyT

Many apologies Ryan, I have been busy today but have time now to address your queries. The comments below are my opinion and we are all entitled to have an opinion.

1. I remain hopeful of a reasonable outcome at Summit.

2. Summit wish to detach Anavio from COPL's valuable assets following Anavio's behaviour over the last 2 years. I do not believe there is evidence that Summit wish to detach shareholders from those assets (or, indeed BP either).

3. Summit will acquire the assets in due course - 17 June in all likelihood.

4. At that stage, Creditors and equity holders remain within COPL.

5. COPL's assets will be extracted by Summit as a result of their lien.

6. BP does not have a lien on the assets so it was opportunistic by Mr Pontin to ask Mr Justice Yamauchi to be treated 'pari passu' with Summit.

7. My opinion is there is scope for Summit to select parties within COPL at that stage in relation to 'what happens next'.

8. My opinion is that the codified treatment in the event of insolvency will apply to |COPL but then fact that the assets would be with Summit as a result of the lien gives Summit an element of discretion.

9. I do not believe that Summit were targeting small shareholders in their recent actions. I believe the sole target was Anavio. Summit have an outstanding reputation in their market which I am sure they wish to keep. Based on my inspection of PK's Affidavits, I believe that Summit could have grounds to take legal action against Anavio and would therefore not be surprised to see Summit commence legal action against Anavio in due course.

10. Michael Cotter and his partners including Joel Barry have excellent legal backgrounds, a brief review of the Law Society website shows this.

11. Mr Cotter is obviously very keen to get started. Obviously Anavio and certain COPL directors and management will be on his initial list of targets and more may follow.

12. With the above in mind, I envisage a busy few weeks with Michael Cotter and his team working on the Class Action (he has some wonderful evidence already with more coming) along with Summit moving matters along so that they stay within the law but do not put their hard earned reputation in jeopardy.

The above is my opinion Ryan. Apologies again for the delay.

Discussions have been going on with Michael Cotter for many weeks and his list of expressions of interest now totals over 500 shareholders. There are no constraints on which parties Michael Cotter may lodge claims against. Meanwhile, Summit has used its lien on the assets to claim them. Once Summit acquires the assets I.e. extracts them from COPL, they will own them and have discretion about what they wish to do next subject to any legal constraints.

Are you saying that the Hearing was irregular Ryan? On what basis would you come to that opinion?

Your words not mine Ryan. This week is the start of Michael Cotter's legal challenge.

Your words not mine Ryan. This week is the start of Michael Cotter's legal challenge.

I am not a legal professional but my opinion is that this would be addressed via separate legal proceedings against those concerned and/or free proceedings more generally I.e. not a challenge to this judgement.

To approve the implementation proposal subject to due process.

I was attended the Hearing via Webex and Mr Justice Yamauchi stated towards the end that there is no right of appeal. What else do you expect me to say other than recommend you address him directly via the Court's Clerk? You should be able to obtain the contact details via the Calgary Court website.

1. None of us know what Summit intend to do once they own COPL's assets. There is reason to believe that Summit are keen to protect their business' excellent reputation and the confidence of investors.

2. Michael Cotter will be starting his legal campaign this week and already has a significant amount of evidence which is increasing regularly. As you know, Michael Cotter is an experienced and talented financial services solicitor.

Personally, I am content that progress is being made.

What power do you think that BP and Mr Pontin had in Mr Justice Yamauchi's Court to force him to change his judgement Ryan? There is no right of appeal. This is all due process and is a legal system developed over hundreds of years. It is proper.

Mr Justice Yamauchi spoke at length with Mr Pontin representing BP at the Hearing at the end of which Mr Pontin thanked His Lordship admitting the BP Affidavit and for not construing Mr Pontin's submission as a sleight on the other Counsel in attendance. There is no right of appeal and all parties concluded the Hearing as per protocol. That is what happened and no objections were made.

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.

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.

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?

Some small shareholders here have panicked recently as a result of the Referendum and Question D. If they review the investment agreement Solgold has with the Ecuadorian Government, they will see that said agreement shows Chile as the jurisdiction for arbitration. As we know, Chile has been a major metals supplier to the world for decades.

Stas

An extraordinary post and much appreciated. We said from the onset that our quest is a fair outcome for all shareholders. This is and always will be our goal. Having people such as yourself who not only support our work so strongly but also contribute so much is a huge advantage. You are right Stas - we will never give up, never. And you know what? That sentiment is only gathering momentum. On behalf of us all, thank you Stas.

Interested to see how many senior ex- COPL folk are here sitting in a RTO vehicle. Focused team with an excellent deal making record. Surely they are looking at what is going on at COPL right now? Nick Pillar was senior O & G specialist at COPL in Wyoming for years and is at Milton now. Interesting team and talented one with so many connections to COPL ex CEO Arthur Millholland. Intriguing.

It's not over yet my friend. This week is important and there are realistic reasons to be hopeful. If things are not as we'd want this week them the legals look great. One foot in front of the other. Our oppo are rich people. But they can't thwart our resolve and grit. Whatever happens this week, we press on.

With over 400 expressions of interest from Shareholders for a 'no win no fee' class action, I would say there is no doubt whatsoever that our high calibre legal team is clear our case 'has legs' as you say. Let's be clear: the files have hard evidence. This is why our legal professionals are willing to act for us based on winning to get a good payout. Please sign up unless you've already done so.

I've always thought that Nigel Little's departure looked odd. Also, Viscount Astor a Director of COPL (UK) Ltd for 6 years and was at COPL in 2013 whilst his fellow Tory Lord Howard Flight was 'a modest shareholder' in a remote company called Peppercoast Petroleum plc listed in the Isle of Man? Viscount Astor is Samatha Cameron's step-father and David Cameron was Prime Minister at the time. The Guardian article refers to a meeting at Drapers' Hall with Henry Bellingham the Foreign Office minister then the notorious deal between ExxonMobil, COPL and Peppercoast took place. Peppercoast Petroleum only lasted between 18 Feb 2011 and 12 Aug 2013. Peppercoast Foundation which, among other things, listed 'giving donations' in Liberia as one of its charitable activities lasted between 13 June 2012 and 21 July 2015. That's gone too. What is also absent is any reference on Companies House to Viscount Astor ever being a Director of COPL(UK) Limited. Why is that? Don't forget that Arthur S Millholland was CEO of COPL throughout that high octane deal in 2013. What does he know about all this? Perhaps he could explain the sudden appearance of COPL (Bermuda) Ltd back then too. Isn't it popping up again now?