Member Info for saintnick

RBM - did the CAG raise any objections?

Can it be appealed?

Target no.1 for the legal team - find that potential purchaser, they are now a witness.

SteveV - it doesn't look like scheming to you?

Ok, just on the basic timings this stinks. 15 months of DD and a LOI whilst £m's raised to upgrade BFU but not delineate CC (or did they, 2 undisclosed wells?).

Continued use of Anavio but no equity raise with shareholders (written into the contract - Robert Brant, sterling work) and then it all falls down.

But, and here's the kicker, the JVP jumps ship Dec 18th, Summit issue default notice on Dec 20th, PK and Province REPLY to Arthur and Tom Dec 19th accepting the gig so they obviously contacted him weeks or months before the JV pulled the plug.

Why did Summit, with first lien debt against the assets, allow Arthur to sign up and keep returning to death spiral financing? The bonds could have been bought out but instead they all allowed this to happen. All of them.

Alfresco - re your 13.30 post, there might be a 3rd solicitor in our team, James Wilkes.

Just checked on Mr Barry and the SRA have nothing issued against him. All 3 listed are regulated people with no regulatory decisons published and all linked to Setfords.

https://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/register/organisation/?sraNumber=8006648

Adnauseum - tbh, i think it was real otherwise issuing the LOI notification in July 23 was just plain stupidity. With all the effort put in to release shareholders of their dues, a mistake like that seems unlikely.

On that basis, 15 months of due diligence by the JVP suggests there is something there hence all the cloak and daggers to bring COPL down, or rather just remove the shareholders.

Subpoena all involved and we'll get the truth. If AM, RG et al made it up then get them back to Blighty under the bilateral UK MLA agreement we have with Canada as these crimes were committed primarily against UK investors regardless of where the company is incorporated.

Montyfino - all court proceedings carries a risk, for me I look at the actions of the company directors as a starting point and think how could or would a judge rule given not only the wider circumstantial evidence but the specific provable instances of the directors (former and present) working against the interests of the shareholders, the direct evidence.

On the basis of the latter, there is a strong case to answer and further discovery during the pre court period will undoubtedly unearth evidence we've not yet considered. Of note, first thing to subpoena will be the documents relating to the JV and anyone involved. That involves disclosure of the 3rd party and their documents, not just COPL's.

If it was all a lie, Arthur and Co are done for and we win, if it was true we'll see the empty box everyone was trying to hide from us and we win.

I do get your point on CEC and Mr Barry, however i'll give the benefit until I know more. It would certainly help to know Setfords official involvement level.

BP were the other senior lender, hidden until the court papers were released. £12m owed as part of the swaps deal. When management talked about senior lenders it was only ever Summit and BP.

Gut feeling, they had something to do with this mess and i don't believe for 1 second Summit are just an innocent party trying to recover their debt. COPL's downfall suits just about everyone involved apart from the shareholders. Look at the evidence, has anyone else in this whole mess lost out apart from us?

I've received Mr Cotter's email. On the face of it I'm in. Evidence looks strong to me for mismanagment alone, insurance covered about £10m and PK recognised this was insufficient. They knew a court case was coming so it'd be rude not to oblige. If they've got any sense they'll settle.

On the cost side, this fraud just about wiped me out but i'll pay an extra £500 to see this through. For those on pensions, without being flippant, the April uplift was about £20 a week so over 6 months the Government will have paid for your involvement. Little comfort I know, but collectively we are stronger.

RBM - email sent to that address April 8th from my Yahoo.co.uk account

Same here Tonlin, have received all previous emails but not this one (not in spam either)

RBMInvest - could you please check if it was sent as 1 group email or in batches due to the large number of recipients?

SteveV - Anavio absolutely came out on top, that was their pay off and they did it by insider dealing. Helen Keller could've spotted that so why the FCA can't is beyond me, but having met some that work there i'm not surprised. They treat it as a stepping stone to join the City spivs.

Arthur signed up to the Anavio deal, with the knowledge of his lawyers (McCarthy Tetrault) with one Robert Brant (Director) sat on our board.

https://www.mccarthy.ca/en/work/cases/copl-acquires-assets-cuda-energy-llc-us25m

Other loan sharks were available but they chose Anavio, through Tennyson and Gaffney's links as they needed people with a track record of coordinated share value destruction. Through that deal came Tom Richardson and Atul Gupta, the latter of which legged it after 2 months once his home address started being public knowledge, still is if anyone wants to pay a visit.

And why those two, well if you need proof of a coordinated scam then look no further than Tom Richardson, Lekoil and the Fenikso loan deal. Arthur knew what he was doing when he signed these guys up that's why he never once offered an equity raise to shareholders. A scam from the second he saw how much oil was at CC, like hell he was going to share that with the little people, trouble is he's lied every step of the way and one way or another he'll have to pay.

Can RBMInvest or any CAG member shed light on the SWP inclusion (or not) within the sale? It's mentioned twice in the AVO.

To me it suggests they may no longer be needed, that points to a larger organisation with experience operators ready to hit the ground running.

If this is provable now or at any point in the future it would strongly indicate a conspiracy to defraud us of our assets as the timing does not fit a normal continuation of operations i.e. SWP onsite. We're told no O&G operators are interested so how can they continue without SWP.

Looks that way, I'm a bit puzzled why the CAG hasn't sort an injunction against this process given the evidence collected with regard to, at a bare minimum, the negligence of the directors and the false informatiin contained within the affidavits.

Additonally, AVO Page 24/25 ".... nothing in this paragraph shall waive... any claim with respect to any act or omission that is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have constituted actual fraud, wilful misconduct or gross negligence"

Surely the CAG have enough to at least make

the Judge aware of the concerns raised about management misconduct?

Today was the day, ironic timing given our situation

https://www.ftadviser.com/your-industry/2024/04/17/financial-misconduct-is-a-silent-epidemic/

Picked up by GB News, Adam Cherry covering on Farage 19.34.

The guys who organised are the Transparency Taskforce, might be a useful contact for the CAG.

https://transparencytaskforce.org

When you say 'they', do you mean KSV, COPL or someone else?

For this scam to work, and so far they're robbing us in plain sight, the data room stays shut. I don't believe any legitimate independant 3rd party has been allowed in.

All that effort to destroy our company, the speed at which this has been rushed through, the fact that scheming rat Arthur and his contracted conman Tom are still at the helm, no way this is getting an outside bid. Not until Summit/BP and Arthur have control, then they'll sell it and pocket our money.

Invest - no, not sure at all but if there wasn't it'll come out.

My money was on BP as they were so close to the action and named as other hidden senior lendor who will now get their money back, £12m i believe.

I think i remember Rodney or RBM saying the CAG had info the JV was real. Extra jail time for Arthur if proved not to be.

Starting backwards, my interpretations would be:

Kept hidden to facilitate additional WI purchase and raise funds for BFU overhaul. Never once used any cash to prove up the CC discovery. Deliberately.

Didn't accounce in RNS as i think we're in a media blackout sanctioned by the court, suggesting it was done very recently and also by design.

Purpose, probably the same as releasing all those sedar docs in Feb - 'admin issues m'lord, very sorry about that' - oversight defence for when they get to court. They know they're going and always have done, liability insurance mentioned by Kravitz.

Who? Now that's the biggy and depends on the 1st question when. My initial tbought was only Kravitz could authorise as CEO, Arthur technically couldn't as not a director. Doesn't mean he didn't, just shouldn't. But now Kravitz is distancing himself the real question is who is in charge. I'm saying Arthur, as the plan has always been.

My question would be, why weren't the JVP running for the hills? Missing 4 pages or not, they trawled over CC data and probably this report for 15 months. If there's nothing to see they leave in 3 months.

Stas - re 10:09 post. Isn't 'Sub-commercial' how they have to define contingent resources?

The move up to reserves happens once the field has been delineated and thats the basis for this scam. They didn't drill it.

The report release is welcomed but I hope not to distracting for the CAG resources whilst the clock ticks down.

For me, the report doesn't say there is no oil. It points to the chance of successfully making the discovery (prudent). The scam was not delineating the field to book reserves, however large or small. It's certainly all worth a lot more than we'll be sold for, otherwise why go to all the trouble of destroying a company to hide it.

The RS report is now in the public domain so is it being included on the emails to potential bidders?

Might be one for the legal eagles amongst us but can you distribute a report already in the public domain?

My instinct says yes as we didn't release initially and it belongs to every one of us. We paid for it.

Real or not, authentification would not affect COPL's competitive advantage as it's distribution has now taken place. If real, it's now out there, if not then no harm done to COPL.

It would be materially informative to any compensation claim made by the CAG so Ryder Scott could be subpoenaed to authenticate in Court.

RMBInvest - did you or other CAG members manage to download a copy before the link expired? Can send via email if not.