The latest Investing Matters Podcast episode featuring Jeremy Skillington, CEO of Poolbeg Pharma has just been released. Listen here.
actually just to reiterate after a re-read: the underhanded nature of copl needs to be emphasised. it’s essential we recognise that this entire situation has been engineered by copl.
sometimes, i worry that as this process drags on, we might lose sight of why we’re here, grappling with concerns and seemingly clutching at any lifeline available. we must never lose sight of the fact that we find ourselves in this predicament because of millholland and gaffney. our focus has a danger of shifting over time—from richardson to anavio, now to the court process and a stalking horse, then to this latest document.
for a long time, i've pointed out that the true architect of our woes is millholland. he boasted about a scheme to bankrupt cuda and seize their assets cheaply. he lied continuously and used us to provide the groundwork and funds for his newly engineered asset theft. this entire debacle bears the hallmark of millholland and his accomplices: gaffney, cowan, and richardson. this is his cookie cutter process.
while our primary goal is undoubtedly to recover our funds, my deeper, more consuming dream is to see these perpetrators brought to justice in court. we are in a battle and we risk playing to millholland as our focus shifts to extremities allowing our gaze to drop from the real crooks. as the sisp is pushed through, millholland might think he's scored a point, but his arrogance will ultimately be his downfall.
unlike with cuda, who didn’t have a cag (cuda action group) and gave millholland no pushback, he now faces opposition from the copl action group who isn’t going to roll over. millholland has left a damning trail of evidence so extensive that in my opinion, he stands on more than just very shaky ground. i believe the sisp will proceed, but the true victory will be bringing down millholland, gaffney, richardson, and anavio—who at each turn seem to only make our case against them stronger.
it is this case that with the help of michael cotter, and the unyielding effort of 450 shareholders and others that will bring us the compensation and justice we deserve. let’s maintain our focus. i certainly will, and i’m committed to ensuring millholland faces the consequences of his actions.
millholland, if you’re reading this, know that my resolve is, and i hope i am not understating it here when i say, unshakeable, tenacious, resolute, unrelenting, inexorable, implacable, steadfast, determined, indomitable, unwavering, vigilant, and above all, i promise to be an absolute pain in your ****.
What I am trying to say is we need BP to support us because they have been made aware of the underhanded nature of COPL, I expect the best support would be given when they realise they are in the same place as us. As it stands I expect their gripe is with KSV and Summit. We need ideally them to see this is all a COPL engineered process. I agree the paragraph is poorly worded, in fact it reads better if you just remove the 'but only' from the second line.
In my view I will simply say I have zero trust in COPL (all directors), Summit, Anavio, and KSV. The huge number of initial documents produced by KSV, some running into greater than a thousand pages, just had to have raised suspicion.
It seems totally improbable and implausible that such extensive documentation could have be prepared in mere days or weeks, suggesting a premeditated plan spanning months, obviously involving KSV as well.
I do believe there could be potential in garnering support from BP, but only if we can demonstrate a concerted and covert effort to defraud and strip shareholders of assets, which would ultimately impact BP adversely. If we can expose the true nature of COPL's actions, which I believe we can, then there may be a possibility of them aligning with us. they are after all now also in the victims enclosure.
However, I want to clarify that I am not directly involved with the CAG. While I trust them to be aware of all emerging avenues, there's always a possibility of oversights, thus I think we should all be comfortable providing suggestions.
It is though for me and I would hope for others, enough to have just voiced the opinions and know that they have been considered.
We should avoid disclosing our intentions to the opposition. Even acknowledging a good idea could potentially arm them with information. Maintaining discretion is crucial, as public affirmations could be detrimental.
While forums offer a platform for sharing ideas, we should imo refrain from expecting explicit endorsements from RBM here. It's a delicate balance to play, but I believe caution is warranted, even if it means sacrificing some immediacy or involvement. I trust RBM to navigate this balancing act with prudence and seek advice as needed. However as I say these are just my feeling and my opinions others may differ and as such everyone's opinion is equally valid.
The contact person for BP Energy Company listed in the document is Derek Pontin. He is associated with Dentons Canada LLP, the law firm representing BP Energy Company in this matter. Derek Pontin can be reached at the following contact information:
Email: derek.pontin@dentons.com
Phone: (403) 268 7015
Fax: (403) 268-3100
He is designated as the point of contact for matters related to the bench brief submitted by BP Energy Company.
RBM that was a serious question as regards recruiting BP, I think there might be merit in Cotter contacting BP and bringing them up to speed with what we know and if they might wish to join the fight, particularly as based on the below, they are now also being shafted?
BP Energy Company's main objections to the proposed Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) are as follows:
1. Prejudice to BP's Interests: BP argues that the proposed AVO is prejudicial to its interests because it seeks to sanction a preference of one creditor over another of equivalent seniority. The order fails to meet the requirements of the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) and further fails to meet the criteria for the extinguishment of third-party interests.
2. Failure to Meet Statutory Requirements: BP contends that the proposed AVO fails to meet the applicable statutory requirements for approval under the CCAA. It highlights section 36(6) of the CCAA, which stipulates that proceeds from the sale of assets must stand in place and stead of the assets, with security attaching to the proceeds with equivalent priority. BP argues that the proposed AVO does not adhere to this requirement, as it directs proceeds to a singular creditor, thereby undermining the legislation.
3. Violation of Common Law Principles: BP asserts that the proposed AVO also fails common law tests, particularly in terms of fairness and equity. It cites the Soundair factors, which include considerations of whether sufficient effort has been made to obtain the best price, whether the interests of all parties have been considered, and whether the process has been fair. BP argues that the sale process was flawed, with efforts to market the COPL assets being limited, and the process stifling participation without delivering any consideration back to BP.
4. Reordering of Priorities: BP objects to the proposed reordering of priorities in insolvency proceedings, which it views as contrary to legal principles and prejudicial to its position as a senior secured creditor. It argues that allowing certain creditors to lift their pre-filing debt to a priority position ahead of other existing claims is akin to a rollup, which is prohibited by section 11.2 of the CCAA.
Overall, BP contends that the proposed AVO fails to meet legal requirements and common law principles, and it advocates for the rejection of the application.
A quick summary of the bench brief of BP
The document provided is a bench brief submitted by BP Energy Company in response to an application by Canadian Overseas Petroleum Limited (COPL) seeking an Approval and Vesting Order (AVO) with respect to a Stalking Horse Purchase Agreement. The document outlines the facts of the case, including the debt owed by COPL to various parties, the proposed sale process, and the interests of different creditors.
BP argues that the proposed AVO is unsupportable at law and prejudicial to its interests, as it seeks to prioritize one creditor over another of equivalent seniority. The document highlights legal and common law requirements for approving such orders, including considerations of fairness, creditor consultation, and the reasonableness of the sale process.
Ultimately, BP concludes that the proposed AVO fails to meet statutory requirements and common law tests. It asserts that rejecting the proposed AVO would open up various reasonable alternatives for COPL's restructuring, including extending the going concern, preserving employment, and enterprise.
The matter pertains to Court File Number 2401-03404 in the Court of King's Bench of Alberta, with the judicial center in Calgary. The document is filed by Dentons Canada LLP on behalf of BP Energy Company, with Derek Pontin listed as the contact person.
The document is structured with sections covering Introduction, Facts, Issues, Law and Argument, and Conclusion, and it includes references to relevant legal authorities and a schedule listing entities involved in the matter.
Overall, the bench brief presents BP Energy Company's arguments against the proposed AVO and advocates for the rejection of the application.
Well that was an interesting day, some bargains available. We just need to now pop back up after Majid has given his presentation and the current 9.35% dividend sinks in and what that might mean once the total return model is factored in, assuming we get some capital appreciation also.
i am not in matd, but i was, fairly heavily from 2018 until finally ending my investments here after having to trade hard, to just after around 5 years ago to leave with a tiny profit, years wasted listening to mike bucks bull****, this chap has more excuses and jam than almost any other director i have ever know (excepting arthur millholland but then he is a crook so slightly different). i have said for many years now heron will never get of the ground, just too much against it and total inept management, they should have left mongolia years and years ago having told the useless authorities that their country is not fit for western investment, too backward in their thinking and or corrupt.
Its not the assumptions that concern me in some respect, but the units of measure used, at least if they used the same it would make cross referencing and understanding why figures are not compatible understandable.
Thanks tony, yes I have looked at the tables, wow WHI confuse everything, I note they use for 2025e
$3.18 CAD/mcf, perhaps Majid could do well to talk to them so that their broker reports at least align with i3's reporting or vice versa!!!
Thanks Tony, yes the discrepancy between volume and revenue is important which I overlooked, thank you.
May I ask, what are your thoughts on the gas price that WHI has used when converted to CAD/GJ particularly against gasalberta forecasts?
Welloil, of course I would like that to be the case, however it takes one hell of a leap of faith to believe that current gas prices at just over a $ , that it is acceptable to then forecast on over 4 times this, I'd be happy to be wrong, can someone show me forecasted gas prices of this level, https://www.gasalberta.com/gas-market/market-prices is not showing this.
Additionally do note that WHI have used the price for gas being $US 3.50/mmbtu whereas i3e used the value of CAD/GJ.
If I am not mistaken, then that would work out at $5.05 CAD/GJ using;
- the current exchange rate of 1 USD = 1.36786 CAD
- 1 mmbtu = 1.05506 GJ (approximately)
thus
Convert USD to CAD:
3.50 USD/mmbtu x 1.36786 CAD/USD = 4.79201 CAD/mmbtu
Convert mmbtu to GJ:
1 mmbtu = 1.05506 GJ (approximately), we can multiply the CAD/mmbtu by this conversion factor.
4.79201 CAD/mmbtu×1.05506 GJ/mmbtu = 5.05109 CAD/GJ
So, the forecasted AECO gas price of $3.50 USD/mmbtu would be approximately $5.05 CAD/GJ. what world does WHI live in to take $5.05 CAD/GJ as forecasted AECO gas and being the house broker Majid should be all over this.