Member Info for saintnick

Drago1 - if its not then there could be scope for bringing a test case for clarification to the Supreme Court, COPL shareholders vs COPL/Summit Partners (hypothetically).

https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2024/2024-07-26-chapter-15-loophole-implications-of-the-ruling-in-purdue-pharma-on-recognition-of-foreign-nonconsensual-third-party-releases

If there's no clear ruling at present then our case would make a compelling example of why one might be needed.

Is Perdue Pharma applicable to a Chapter 15 case?

Un_Known - I'm struggling to think of a reason for someone internal (if anyone's still there) to stop COPL Ltd from being struck off.

Best I could do that made any sense was a distribution of funds via special dividend to current shareholders as part of any potential settlement, or a buyback. Allowing the company to be struck off would kill off that option, keeping it live would be more cost efficient should they pay up.

That obviously wouldn't help ex-shareholders but I don't think they're to concerned with current let alone ex-shareholders.

Can you confirm this was internal move?

Good to know Un_Known.

What then is the reason to keep a non-trading and now effectively shell company from being struck off? More specifically why would someone internal would want this to happen.

Probably a better question as you have the inside track, who is left at COPL?

Well it won't be Kravitz, so if internal it's going to be TR and maybe JC. Both need cover so a strategic move to fight a claim as a company rather than an individual director wouldn't be beyond them.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/31/chapter/1/crossheading/registrars-power-to-strike-off-defunct-company#:~:text=1000Power to strike off,on business or in operation.

"(7)However—(a)the liability (if any) of every director, managing officer and member of the company continues and may be enforced as if the company had not been dissolved"

For example, legal costs being covered by COPL and its backers to fight shareholder claims. Reason a backer might pay? Maybe to keep a lid on what actually happened and keep them from whistle blowing. Just a thought.

Https://www.gov.uk/object-to-a-limited-company-being-struck-off

"You must have evidence to support your objection - for example, invoices or other evidence showing the company owes you money."

As far as i can tell, they were both at ING capital markets at the same time. They go way back.

Do we also have a claim for the following?

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/all-notices/content/104286#:~:text=Preferential treatment%3A If directors have,this may be considered misfeasance.

UK based directors might want to think again about their roles in our downfall. As far as i can tell, common examples 1 to 4 have all happened in our case.

On no.4 specifically, that sounds like the "cornerstone investors" come primary shorters and a certain director to me. Oddly quiet given their supposed $25m loss.

Not sure why things need to be kept hidden at this stage, the damage has been done already.

What doesn't sit right is that TR was allowed free reign at COPL, from non-exec to running the show in 5 months.

AM was apparently sidelined in Sept but then organising Kravitz and Province pre Dec 19th.

Un_Known - if this wasn't orchastrated towards the exact outcome the shareholders find ourselves in then why were AM and TR in contact with Kravitz before the JV was pulled and when was intial contact made with Kravitz?

It should take months of due diligence if done by the book which means they were organising the downfall of shareholders whilst increasing debt Sept to Dec and not spending that cash on the NGL injectant.

If that's not the case then AM's version of events will be full of revelations and TR (and JC) are on thin ice.

BoldlyGo - from memory, Tennyson Securities (Peter Krens).

Also linked to TR's other triumps at Nostrum, Lekoil and Coro Energy.

Un_Known - does that imply AM had no say in his appointment?

Un_Known - I tend to agree, if AM helps MC get my £k's back then great. Not forgiven for the stress he's caused (deliberately or otherwise) but it would go someway to repair the considerable damage done to me personally and i'm sure many others.

However, comments made through years of frustration would only be slanderous if not true and we've seen everything to suggest they could be, and very little to suggest AM is also a victim in all this.

As an inside man, I appreciate you raising your head every so often and value the info you've provided. On that, could you please clear up the following for me:

Why did AM hire TR given his background with Lekoil?

Who (company or individual) introduced TR to AM?

George - the rule 9 enforcement criteria is so full of holes and 'regulated' by toothless individuals with no appetite for a fight. The Spivs know it and factor in any fine that might come their way.

https://code.thetakeoverpanel.org.uk/tp/rules/rule-9/rule-9-dispensations-notes.html

Plus, COPL requested exception from Policy 4 of the CSE due to 'financial difficulties'.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/COPL/exemption-re-cse-policy-4-requested-pzl5k3pfznudawn.html

It's worth remembering that COPL (falsely in my opinion) declared the use of MI 61-101 early on in this process of sharevalue destruction. We're over 2 years down the track, the oil's still flowing and revenue coming in, a loose interpretation of financial hardship at best.

Also, the Tosca intervention. Key to getting Avanio off the hook, or so they would've hoped. Damon Barber might know a little more.

Bourne60 - you raise a good point re never ending cut off although i suspect we'll hear news on that next week.

As funds are now largely collected and we have a war chest as it were, I will float the idea of possibly taking out a final call advert in the financial press.

The FT rates aren't unreasonable and you can choose print, digital or both to reach our target audience. It has the added bonus of putting everyone on notice, including the press, that something is happening in the PI world that we don't often see. MC and CAG could agree an end date in Sept and if we only attract an additional 10-15 people the ad pays for itself.

I'd like to believe this was just a ballsup by greedy chancers but the outcomes and missed inputs seem far too preordained.

Pointless raking over the coals on here, MC will hopefully get to the bottom of it, but a couple of simple safety switches would've changed the destiny of the company.

Firstly, with the $25m+ borrowed just from Anavio, why did they not prove up the CC resource. Exxon knew what it was and was willing to pay big, the only reason not to delineate was to close down the RBL avenue. Instead, they spent mega bucks on the infrastructure at BFS. Suspect to say the least.

Secondly, they could've released the RS report as promised then gone to the markets for additional funding, which the directors could've joined as all undisclosed info would be in the public domain.

The fact they did neither of these speaks for itself. It wasn't a ballsup, it was planned, by who is still my concern.

So Richardson, Summit plant or Millholland stooge? If you don't know that's fine, guess it makes no differemce now.

So with Millholland gone and a clearout at COPL and SWP it could be argued thay Summit have now done what Exxon required for the JV to progress. I guess we'll see in time.

BurrenBoy - that's a given, what i'm after is some insight as to how we all got screwed. There are many knowledgeable posters on here, some with facts and others with theories that are pretty bang on the money.

I've got theories and some facts, what i dont have is Un_Known's insight (RS report, much appreciated still). Legal ways should get some payback but I'd also like to know how the hell this happened and who is really to blame. They might not face true justice but at least it would be out there and we'd know just how corrupt the markets are nowadays. At this point, nothing would surprise me, but i'd just like to know.

Un_Known - by engaging in damaging tactics, what was the hopeful outcome?

Exxon on board suits the Co. and shareholders, to a degree the directors, although the closed period would have been an issue i imagine, but ultimately just about everyone wins. Even Anavio made a bucket from the soon to be blown up shorts, Clink awaits mafia boys! But the way i see it, letting the JV progress suited everyone.....

Except Summit, correct?

So who really engaged Richardson, Summit or Millholland?

Good to know. Fits with the alleged narrative of Exxon and Summit being in cahoots. I said months ago that big money attracts the big players, maybe AM's plan was so good the powers that be took it off him. I'll not shed a tear if true.

Still think there's a fat finger left in the pie but kind of irrelevant now, just hoping these huge companies realise the power of social media and PR nightmares in this day and age.

Compromise with rightly angry shareholders is surely better than an all out exposure of wrong doing, regardless of who actually did it. You own it, you have to explain how if genuine questions are asked in court.

On that point, do Summit now have the authority to sack COPL or COPLA staff? Unsure as to the technicalities of the stay but thought Summit own it once the restructuring is rubber stamped, which it hasn't been as far as i'm aware?

By design, no doubt. Another strategic move to create a false impression of no wrong doing.

Speaking of which, COPL's Confirmation Statement still hasn't been submitted to Companies House so we don't any of the details regarding Directors or ownership - only reasons I can think for this is they're dissolving the company or don't want to disclose who cirrently owns shares. Might be wrong, probably not given everything else we've endured.

Un_Known - any clue as to his current employer or employment status?

Consultant to Summit by any chance?