The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode with London Stock Exchange Group's Chris Mayo has just been released. Listen here.
Thanks RBM. For balance on my part, it could also be a filing error by the court clerks. Trouble is, when it comes to COPL I see conspiracy with all involved.
I found the Service Lists for the Ted Baker hearing dated last week, May 28th, and Trichome Financial Corp. On them, both Cassels and Blakes are listed but with Blakes correct address at 199 Bay St.
RBMInvest - what do you make of Anavio using the same Toronto law firm as KSV?
That can't be a coincidence and Summit appear to be the connection. Looks dodge to me, especially changing the firm names but operating out of the same office.
Also, how would Summit knock out Anavio (debt wise) without also having to cancel all the shares in issue as they hold 17% (from memory). In that scenario, i dont see how Summit could do anything positive for current shareholders if they actually follow through with the restructuring, which I'm very doubtful of.
Wwal17 - spot on. BP 'ignoring' the biggest onshore discovery in decades. Why, just why, would an O&G major do that? Because they just want their $12m back?? Don't think so.
Two reasons i can think of.
First, it doesn't exist. But i'm not buying that for a second. Ryder Scott wouldn't put their reputation on the line for someone else to profit.
Second, smoke and mirrors. Look away, there's no oil and lots of debt. Oh, but to recover our debt we might have to do a deal with Summit. We really don't want to buy it but we have no choice.
And its all court approved so 'legit' for media purposes.
Have SWP been discharged yet? What does 'substantially all' mean in relation to COPL's assets? Why are Shoreline still a thing? It's nice in Bermuda.
People focusing on just the money need to dig deeper, the answers are in there somewhere. Who operates the fields if SWP aren't there? Where is the monthly revenue going now the interest payments and directors aren't being paid?
Who are COPL's auditors and what information can they be compelled to provide, to the shareholders, in a court hearing?
We may never know, or maybe we're about to find out. June you say Un_Known, how about making use of that mailling list at the end of the Service List and that report you had in March!
I'd question why BP mention Spectrum Energy's CFO thinking the bid floor price was too high based on his own investigations.
Sounds like they're pushing their own low ball narative rather than industry acknowledged facts surrounding the discovery.
They're not going to help us.
It looks pretty suspicious to me.
KSV law firm: Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP
Anavio law firm: Blake Cassels & Graydon LLP
Both firms operating from:
Bay Adelaide Centre - North Tower 40 Temperance St, Suite 3200. Toronto ON M5H 0B4
What are the chances??
And why use two different named clearly linked law firms?
Summit brought in KSV via Province.
Summit didn't stop Anavio when they could and should of.
KSV and Anavio now have the same law firm, who is the link?
Ryan2007 - correct. It should have value, thats the point. Nobody apart from us shareholders is recognising that, in fact they're ALL deliberately not mentioning it.
Find one point of reference to the RS report or discovery in the court papers. It stinks. ALL involved either know we were or lied to about CC or know what's there. The RS report is now public domain so why doesn't one of the involved parties make use of it
SteveV - i'd question why they're not highlighting the RS report as part of their process.
I dont think BP will be doing us any favours, best to focus on the instigators as the legal routes to compensation are easier to prove against these individuals.
For all the effort involved to grab the asset, Summit won't be giving it away but the eventual owner will need to show a 'legit' route to ownership. Unlucky for them i guess as there'll be years of noise around this deal if we get nothing back.
Anderson Affidavit Section 28. BP values COPL assets at less than $56m.
They use the same technicality this scam is based on, not proving up CC. By leaving it untouched in the ground it has no technical asset value.
Ryan2007 - the link between Summit and Anavio appears to be KSV. May 17th Service List, KSV and Anavio have the same law firm based in the same office in Toronto. Different company names, same outfit.
I'll start that again...
I think there are important questions to answer around what info the CAG do have or dont. I dont need to know all, just if they signed the NDA. If they didnt, this needs to be stated clearly in a response to the court documents.
I've no idea who's in or out of this scam, i do know that it'd take multiple parties to pull it off.
As for moral compasses, i'd point to the BP pensioners and Deepwater Horizon. Neither crown the company as the bastion of moral or ethical standards. I guess we'll find out in a couple of years when the court cases are over and the noise stops.
My money was on Exxon as the eventual owner, given the smoke and mirrors at play it probably still is. Huge ?? for me is what CNOOC think about all this. 15% of BFSU is not to be sniffed at, do they still own it?
This is an old article but highlights the power and reach of BP. Whilst reading I was minded to think, as i've done previously, that Summit don't know a thing about running an O&G co and will need to pass it on quickly.
I was also minded that BP should have seen this situation coming, and probably did, so this late appeal seems out of character for such a knowledgeable company that could have intervened much earlier.
https://www.risk.net/commodities/6631216/deal-of-the-year-north-america-bp
Plugging costs being an ongoing liability is also an interesting angle for avoiding bankruptcy, who does that ultimately benefit as COPL wouldn't be on the hook.
Jazzyjim - the transcript is available on AWS, public domain for a while so no secrets being shared.
Can't post the link but type "aws copl shareholder group may 23" into google. Be warned though, it's long and full of the usual from Arthur.
I understand everyone's situation will be different, the way i see it with £40k gone then £550 to get even 10% back is worth it.
The alternative is spending the next few years checking the canadian obituaries until i can finally move on from this outright theft. I hold my hands up to all my previous bad investments, but this was something else much worse.
I still have my copy of the Ryder Scott report (thanks Unknown) which proves this wasn't a bad investment, just bad actors involved.
I disagree. There's no way i could go it alone and this money was written off, with all the stresses and arguments that causes.
My point was simply that if we win and share a payout of any size it will be allocated proportionally so why aren't the costs treated in the same way. Its a 5 min job on ex
Not pouring water on it as i'm grateful for all the efforts and to be involved but, my last post pointed out that between me and the wife we hold just over £40k but, collectively would have to pay £550+VAT (the same as £50k+ banding) this new banding means we now have to pay £575+VAT... so we'll not be grouping together on that basis.
Said it before but the fairest way would be proportional cost based on amount invested ÷ total amount in the group, after pro forma applications have closed.
Still in, obviously, but not sure why that isnt being looked at as when it comes to any payout being divided up (after costs) it will be allocated on a proportional basis. Won't it?
On the face of it, the banding system was a good starting point for fee allocation.
Having now seen the timeline for pro-forma, followed by invoicing, the data encapsulated on the pro-forma's should be the factoring indicator, not the initial interest shown by 500+ respondants.
A simple spreadsheet could remove the lower end of investors from the fees and the remainder should be on a proportional basis once the application deadline has closed.
My household (inc. Wife) will pay £550+Vat for a total holding just over £40k, that will be the same as Mr Goozee should he join with his £
I'm in, decided before the meetings but any minor doubts I may have had are gone now i've heard MC's approach.
He's an expert in this field so between his knowledge and the CAG's graft, I wouldn't want to be a current or former COPL director.
I do have one suggestion for RBM, Rodney or any other members. I've noticed a lot of well established posters just hearing about the cause and jumping back on the bb so, could one of the group please post a general call to arms across all the other LSE O&G bb's with info on how to join, website, CEC and X info etc.?
It's plausable there are many other previous investors solely on other bb's that might want to join the fight so could be worth a final push.
I've been on these bb's for years and seen far less obvious but equally damaging management shenanigans (Xcite, GKP, Afren, Desire, NUOG, Frontera) the list is endless..... but I've never once seen a fight back, it's about time.
Maidit308 - to me, the Anavio saga was about covering off any outside bids by building in access to quickly issued bond conversions through increased debt, and potential market share should it be required to fend off an outside bid, whilst the SP simultaneously gets hammered pushing COPL towards the inevitable default.
Anavio never made a play for COPL, they had plenty of opportunities to do so but instead they just kept on stumping up cash whilst shorting the socks off it, even after the default. Odd unless it's seen in the context of the bigger default picture and how it could be engineered, then it just makes sense. Nobody loses except the shareholders.
If that's not the case, i'd question why Anavio haven't launched their own legal proceedings against COPL, $25m down so we're told.