Shareholders interests16 Mar 2024 09:03
Re Micky’s post below - thanks for highlighting this updated section
15 Mar 2024 22:43
Https://www.ksvadvisory.com/docs/default-source/insolvency-case-documents/canadian-overseas-petroleum/ccaa-proceedings/reports/copl---first-report-of-the-monitor---final.pdf?sfvrsn=892b42e9_3
“Shareholder Matters
1. On March 14, 2024, the CRO provided the Monitor with copies of various email correspondence received from shareholders who expressed concerns regarding, among other things: (i) the value of the assets and the sale of same; (ii) the quantum of the outstanding debt; and (iii) Anavio Capital Partners LLP’s historic role in potential short trades of the COPL stock.
2. The Monitor was subsequently copied on email correspondence from a shareholder raising concerns about short trades of the COPL stock.
3. The Monitor understands that the CRO has responded to the email correspondence received. The Monitor’s view is that the SISP will determine the value of the COPL Group.”
The point of me including shorting info to him was to point out that this had cause and effect on the share price and as interim CEO making an affidavit why wasn’t it included? The point also of highlighting it to him and the company and others was then they couldn’t deny knowledge of it. I think as interim CEO he still has fiduciary duties and therefore he should be asking other board members if they were aware of it and the key person being TR. I don’t think it can be dismissed in one liner as it did have a huge impact on the share price decline. It also again begs the question of the exemption of voting re related party which looks even poorer decision if you marry it up with the shorting by Anavio we would’ve voted NO! So did they really not know that company was being shorted by the ‘cornerstone’ funder? Also, the reason the FCA and Canadian authorities need to look at this activity is to see HOW exactly was it conducted and achieved? If they shorted up to 49% of the company by 12th Jan, then if the funding agreement had somehow fallen through how would they have covered the position in COPL from a legal point of view how does this look/work etc would they be exposed eg ? Tie this in to the 12th Jan RNS from TR and this should add weight for them to want to at least look at the audit trail on the shorting activity then and the repriced placing 6th October with similar pattern. It may be completely legal but they should look and should be obliged to look especially in the current circumstances & that they have been fined in Norway for shorting activities.
PK isn’t just the CRO currently, he’s paid CEO & he should be satisfying himself he has all the information & that his affidavit reflects what was going on in the market at this time to the detriment of our share price & that decisions by the BOD contributed to the share price decline, not that we lost the JV partner as the major reason added 40 % decline it was being hammered by s
Sign In
Follow the stocks
