The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen here.
Is it worth everyone sending Kravitz the same email? Even if it’s changed slightly by everyone it’s pretty much going to read the same. It may get to a point where he stops reading them and decides he won’t answer anyone. At least just now he’s answering ie Sharebel and hopefully will reply to Stas. Would it garner more credence from Kravitz if received from the legal team?
Could add to the GGS. This infrastructure was allegedly upgraded in 2019 by Atomic. This handled pressures to produce 2700 bopd. Then all of a sudden it couldn’t. Production fell and we had to invest in new system. Was it actually required? If so why did DD not identify it?
Not sure which header you’ll put them under. So will leave that to you. I’ll just add as I think of any bullet points.
1) A paper is to be written on the find due to its enormity. Didn’t happen
2) We are producing 1700 bpd at flaring meeting. Then monthly figures revealed we weren’t.
3) confidentiality on wells should only last for 6 months. We still don’t know anything about them. (To add to the well statement).
4) Is it worth bringing the COPL - Exxon Liberia scandal back up?
‘COPL's assets were insufficient to cover the claims of secured and unsecured creditors which today stand in excess of $135 million’. So that includes the bond holders which are unsecured creditors. Richardson obviously trying to make sure Anavio are not left out!
Is it legal for bond holders to short a company the hold bonds in? All they have to do is convert bonds, knowing this will cause the SP to fall, while they’re shorting the company. Surely that is insider trading?!
The EGM is convened at an irregular time to address a crisis. All matters transacted at an EGM are deemed special. For example, the removal of a top executive might constitute the agenda of an extraordinary general meeting. An EGM is also called a special/emergency general meeting.
‘The only mention of NGL is £160k for a "NGL Deficiency fee" whatever that is. Sounds like a charge from the supplier for not buying what they were contracted to.’ If that is the case Tallgrass would just be in line like the rest of the creditors for payment. It specifically states they need to continue to pay suppliers to enable COPL to continue as a going concern. The only supplier mentioned is Tallgrass
Page 13 - As part of its efforts to restructure for the benefit of stakeholders, the COPL Group began exploring DIP financing options with its key stakeholders and other third parties. At the same time, COPL America commenced discussions with the Lender regarding the terms on which they would support a restructuring of the Applicants. Discussion with the Lender bore fruit, and on March 7, 2024, the COPL Group and the Lender executed a support agreement (the “Restructuring Support Agreement”), which outlined the terms and steps of the Lender’s support. The Restructuring Support Agreement appends a term sheet (the “Restructuring Term Sheet”), and authorizes the Applicants to negotiate and enter into a stalking horse purchase agreement substantially in accordance with the terms set out in the Restructuring Term Sheet by no later than March 22, 2024. The stalking horse purchase agreement is intended to support the proposed SISP, and may ultimately serve as the basis for the restructuring of COPL. The Applicants anticipate seeking approval of the Restructuring Support Agreement at the Comeback Hearing, along with approval of the SISP. The proposed restructuring contained in the Restructuring Term Sheet represents the best path to stabilize the COPL Group’s business, maximize stakeholder value, and preserve the COPL Group as a going-concern.
A debtor in possession (DIP) is a business or person that has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection but still holds property to which creditors have a legal claim under a lien or other security interest.
Debtor in possession (DIP) is typically a transitional stage during which the debtor attempts to salvage value from assets after bankruptcy.
Although DIPs often exercise substantial influence over the assets in their possession, creditors can ultimately use courts to force the sale of those assets.
The key advantage to DIP status is being able to continue running a business, albeit with the obligation to do so in the best Interest of any creditors.
It’s nothing to do with directors promising anything. It’s to do with directors blatantly lying to shareholders and the market. Which is illegal. But you are right about one thing…. You’re not a court of law!