ATP Oil & Gas Corp fka ATPAQ

[zigjordan]

Horrible news today.



http://bloom.bg/1MaeC5R

[stevhoff]

What a crock, I get a letter today from Cooper & Scully offering me a settlement of $101 before they take me to court since I held ATP 8% preferreds for a short period of time back in 2012. Apparently the dividend payment was an illegal transfer of funds and they want the money back(originally I got 1 dividend payment of $202).So even though the proposed settlement with preferred stockholders has not been approved, they want me to settle for 50 cents on the dollar. I think I'll pass but thanks just the same.

[biltan]

I bet that is why..Thanks for sending it

[romang]

Just maybe because i sent them an email asking about it about a month ago :)

[biltan]

I have, looks like Mr Henderson is qualified to answer valuation of the ATP interest in the Daniel East and West fields. My question is how come the Trustee has not mentioned this interest before now. A year ago it should have been worth substantially more... glad something is getting started now.

[romang]

I have read it looks like the trustee is on the job!

[seismic]

Good evening ……… it’s has been six days since court document 3734 was filed, how many have read this document?

[palico]

This pertains to post #6508 on this message board, the motion. If I may be permitted to say your motion was not posted to the court record because it did not comply with rule 9009 of the Rules and Regulations of Bankruptcy Court which states the required format of a motion. First the matter is in Chapter 7 and Randy Tow is now the debtor. You are the Movant who is making the motion not to Isgur but to Tow. Look at the format of the motions made by Tow and others. Centered at the top is the name and address of the court. Underneath at thel left is the Movant making the motion. That is your name followed by Pro Se which is Latin for ons's self. On the right is the name of in this case the only one who cane speak for the debtor now that the case is in Chapter 7 and that is Randy Tow, Chapter 7 Trustee. Your motion goes to him not Isgur. Then you start your. Motion pursuant to Rule 9009 and state what you want Randy Tow to do pursuant to that State Law you mention by identifying the state law, the reason why it applies and you want Randy Tow to do it in keeping with the court ruling of 10/29/15 whereby the court ruled and directed the Chapter 7 Trustee Tow to submit a 90 day report on the status of Earster District La Court matter. This was a ruling and not an order because letter to the Court was not a proper motion but it gives you justification to submit a motion for an order of what you want now. Then you compose an order for the judge to sign. Keep it brief and specific to what you want. See Randy Tows proposed orders to the judge as examples of how to compose your order. Once again like Tow keep your order brief and specific. The third part of making a proper motion to the Court is Certification of Service. Once again see Tow,s Certification of Service to the Court for proper format. You will mail the original of all of the above to the Court via KCCLLC whose clerks post all motions to the court docket. In the envelope to the Court you will place three USPO Proof of Mailing receipts ($1.00 each) for each party you sent it. In the envelopes to Tow and his law firms will be copies of their particular Proof of Mailing receipt. Then you will see your motion posted to the court docket. Go online and ask for Form B20A - the form for notice or objection of a bankruptcy court motion or objection. Forget the state court for now. Nothing will be accomplished their. Forget Nancy Holley. She is not your friend. She is the adversary who did not do her job in Chapter 11 and will now share with Tow 10 per cent of the Chapter 7 settlements for pennies on the dollar which is what Tow is doing now. Read the bankruptcy rules before you do anything. The Cornell University site is a Google one for that.

[seismic]

As I think about this reported find in Daniel East and West and ATP once held a 40% interest in these fields, I am troubled and somewhat puzzled. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to pay professionals in this case and what has been the result? Nothing more than a common money grab.

Did you know that according to the resource report, Netherland and Sewell in their evaluation of the Daniel East and West fields used 3D seismic data acquired in 2001 by Western Geco with the processing completed in 2013? PGS also acquired a new seismic data set in 2014, which was processed by Western Geco and completed in 2015.

To me this 2014 data was to confirm what was found in the 2013 processing. Both data sets were used to make this evaluation of the David East and West fields. So we had seismic data shot in 2001, final processing in 2013, and with that a few people had a very good understanding what the David reserves might be, my question who were the folks that knew?

Did you also know that it was reported in January 2013 that Isramco Negev 2 partnership said that they had submitted a court petition to the bankruptcy court to buy the rights of its partner, ATP Oil and Gas, in Israel's offshore Shimshon natural gas field for $39.7 million.

Isramco and its affiliates owned 60% of the Shimshon field, and ATP owned 40%. (5% ATP and 35% ATP East Med) My guess is that Isramco’s offer was no more than 10 ten cents on the dollar value; maybe less.

Isramco stated, “because ATP has filed for bankruptcy, the court must approve the sale”. Isramco also reported that the Shimshon field likely contains up to 2.3 Tcf of gas, according to geological surveys. ) Today ATP only holds a 5% interest, what happened to the 35%.

You will not find information regarding this January 2013 $39.7 million dollar offer in any of the bankruptcy court documents, but you will find a filing on 1/31/2013 stating Doyle, Restrepo, Harvin and Robbins representing Isramco, court document 1295.

So now we are talking 2013, the dip lenders are buying the assets, 6/21/2013 court document 2094, limited objection by Isramco to court document 1252; you may recall the dip lenders at the eleventh hour tried to slip into their purchase the Israeli assets. Franks Casing steps up at the same time with Isramco, court document 2097, joinder in Isramco objection and the result, the Dip can’t have the Israeli assets.

What is interesting in Isramco objection they state, ATP East Med Number 1 B.V. (“ATP BV”), entered into Farmout Agreements and Joint Operating Agreements with the Isramco Parties with regard to oil and gas exploration on the Shimshon License and the Daniel Licenses, offshore licenses located off the coast of Israel. (This represented the 35% interest in these fields.) Because of ATP BV’s inexperience and affiliation with ATP, ATP effectively became the Operator of the Licenses, (This represented the 5% interest) Isramco continues, although it (APT) has probably forfeited that status under Israeli law. (But today ATP still holds the 5% interest.)

It is documented that the DIP Lenders tried in the eleventh hour to take these assets and of course they had to know of Isramco’s earlier offer , again my guess Isramco’s offer was no more than 10 ten cents on the dollar; maybe less. Just me, but someone knew what the seismic data contained and of course we have no clue as to what was going on behind the scenes in this bankruptcy with these assets. The DIP did not get the assets and it appears Isramco did.

The sale of ATP Netherlands started around 10/1/2013, court documents 2618,2619,2622,2628,2666 and 2678. With this sale all of the Israeli assets where to be transferred from ATP East Med to ATP before that sale was to be completed. These assets were the 35% holdings of the Shimshon and David fields. At that closing ATP was to hold all of the Israeli assets.

Another interesting late 2012 fact, court document 1046 order declaring effect of the automatic stay regarding the debtors property including the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Israel which was signed on December 13, 2012.

With the transfer of the Israeli assets from ATP East Med to ATP in October 2013, one would think that the 40% interest in the Shimshon and Daniel licenses would have been preserved. June 2013 and October 2013 we still held these assets.

So maybe someone can help me understand what happened to the 35% interest in these fields? The dip didn’t get the assets and it appears Isramco did (35%) without paying ATP one dime, regardless of the Automatic Stay.

With the transfer of these assets from ATP East Med to ATP how does the court not preserve and protect these assets. Maybe just maybe the professionals in this case told the court these assets had no value. I remember one lady telling me they had no value.

Just me again, I don’t think folks understand my efforts in trying to preserve ATP Corporation as an entity. I speak of corporate governance denied to equity holders as third parties have made business decisions that only the board of directors could approve, and the lack of fiduciary responsibility by those third parties to equity holders, but the bottom line is if APT were to be preserved, where we equity holders maintained our ownership, with a new board of directors, we would have a vehicle to perform a postmortem on every element of this bankruptcy case.

There is no court protection against fraud and or intentional malice with regards to fiduciary responsibilities in bankruptcy cases. Dead corporations tell no stories, they just go away. No disclosed harm, no foul. For me it is hard to understand how only a few profited from this bankruptcy!

With a preserved ATP Corporation and new elected board they might have an interest in reviewing all of the documents,communications and deals and side deals made in this bankruptcy looking for elements of fraud and malice by the parties. How ATP can lose their 35% interest in these Israeli fields but still maintain the 5% interest is puzzling. How can we lose this 35% without a court hearing and or some notice made to equity holders? Is this remaining 5% the result of some deal that was made by the professionals in this case?

Isramco reported the Shimshon field likely contained 2.3 Tcf of gas and now the David fields reported at 8.9 Tcf; that totals 11.2 Tcf reported in these fields, then we learn that there was seismic data reported to have been completed in 2013, maybe just maybe if the DIP lenders would have allow monies to be spent developing these fields the outcome of this bankruptcy might have been different, but they. the DIP, would not have received the billions of dollars of assets they claimed and received in late 2013, they also tried to claim the Israeli assets at the eleventh hour.

And ATP”s 40% interest in the Israeli assets reduced to 5%, is this the result of deals, deals and more deals. Maybe just maybe no one cares, are we just sitting back with our fingers crossed hoping that we might receive a few pennies for our equity ownership.

Or maybe some might be mad as hell.

[seismic]

The subject at hand now is the reported 5% interest in the Daniel East and West offshore Israel fields. It was reported that the field could contain 8.9 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas. It also reported that “Gas reserves this size could significantly change the Israeli gas market”.

To give folks an idea about the size, this would be the third largest field off shore Israel; with Leviathan reported at 19 TCF and Tamar reported at 10 TCF, only these two fields are larger.
In comparison, ATP’s Shimshon discovery was reported at 0.55 TCF.

Israeli government documents show ATP with a 5% interest Shimshon and Daniel East and West fields.

It is interesting to me that after the Equity Security Holders Status Conference in 2014, Nancy Holley told me that this 5% interest in these Israeli fields wasn’t worth anything. Now it appears these assets could be worth hundreds of millions to ATP. Maybe just maybe these assets can now be sold and be used to pay off the DIP.

It appears to me that quick math suggests a $950 Million value for ATP; with ATP selling and getting a 50% value minimum ($475 million) paying the dip off and then starting to pay the bond holders just might become a reality. Leaving the BP claim left to be litigated and paid. Maybe just maybe Equity holders just might get paid a very handsome payout. This just builds my case with the Texas Secretary of State regarding ATP equity holders rights of Corporate Government have been denied.

Having send that, can someone tell me what happened to ATP East Med Israeli subsidiary asset which were. (These were interest in addition to the 5% for ATP corp.)
a. a 35% participating interest in the 332/Simshon License,
b. a 35% participating interest in the 391 Daniel West License, and
c. a 35% participating interest in the 392/Daniel East License

When ATP Netherlands was sold these assets were to be conveyed to ATP the Debtor. Thus, the entities in which the Israeli Assets were held, along with certain other Eastern Mediterranean entities, would remain property of the Debtor’s estate following the sale of ATP Netherlands.

With the Automatic Stay court document 1046, ATP should still hold these assets.

It appears to me Isramco somehow now owns the Israeli assets held by ATP East Med. So we lost the 35% interest; but somehow ATP Corp retained its 5% ownership interest.

How do you lose 35% and retain 5%, I don’t recall any court filing and or notice given equity holders that our 35% stake in these licenses were lost and or sold. Can you image if ATP still retained a 40% interest in these properties. Folks that would be a 40% interest in $19 billion dollars of value! The dip would not allow one penny to be spent on the development of these assets and BP should also be held accountable for these lost revenue opportunities from these lost assets. (Cause and affect)

To compare the value of natural gas vs. crude, there are about 1 million BTUs in an MCF of gas. (Thousand cubic feet of natural gas) and about 6 million BTUs in a barrel of oil.(Six to One) As a side note there are one million Btu in about 8 gallons of gasoline.

Current US price is $2.26 per MCF of natural gas and the Crude price today is $30.39 a barrel, the natural gas equivalent (6 to 1) $13.56 for 6 million BTU’s vs crude at $30.39 for 6 million BTU’s, which commodity has a bigger upside? Then compare the worldwide price for LNG today in Japan $8.50 per MCF. Any wonder why OPEC is willing to sell their crude at today’s low prices.

Timer Saver in Slidell LA today has gasoline at $1.36 a gallon. One million BTU of gasoline (8 gallons) would cost $10.88 vs natural gas for one million BTU’s today at $2.26. Which commodity has the bigger upside?

With the US now able to export natural gas and sell on the world market, which commodity has the bigger upside?

Natural gas power plants, natural gas transportation vehicles; those that down play the future value of natural gas should look at the potential value of the US exporting LNG to the world and those dollars coming back into this country. The balance of trade numbers will tilt back in favor of the US and the US economy will grow stronger. You should check out the prices paid for LNG around the world.

The comment “Gas reserves this size could significantly change the Israeli gas market”. They too may elect to export LNG to the world markets.

[seismic]

I was asked why I didn’t post my motion on the board; as my motion was quite long and I thought those that had an interest could read it on KCCLLC, of course my motion didn’t show up on KCCLLC, only the last two pages of my eight page document, which was the order I developed. Never the less the motion was denied, “In his motion, he misunderstands whether the derivative rights of shareholders under state law apply after a bankruptcy case has been commenced. Upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case, only the Trustee may sue for the Estate’s damages. State law giving derivative standing to shareholders is no longer applicable for redress for injuries to the Estate.”

As the motion was not seen by folks here, I have posted it below. I will take this issue up with the Texas Secretary of State as my claim is based on Equity holders rights denied.


IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

In re: § Chapter 11 / 7

ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, § Case No: 12-36187

Debtor. § Hon. Marvin Isgur


A MOTION BY DOUGLAS A. MEYER, EQUITY HOLDER OF COMMON AND “PREFERRED” EQUITY SECURITIES IN ATP OIL AND GAS CORPORATION AND SECOND LIEN HOLDER OF ATP BONDS, IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEBTOR, ATP OIL AND GAS CORPORATIONS CIVIL SUIT; ATP OIL & GAS CORP. v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL, CASE NO. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

Mr. Meyer through this Charter 11 and Chapter 7 case has voiced his concerns with his letters, objections and motions to the court regarding stockholders rights of corporate governance, fiduciary responsibility to equity holders, due process rights of equity holders and equity holders being disenfranchised. Mr. Meyer’s perception then and now is that those who have a fiduciary duty to equity holders just do not care. Their lack of action speaks louder than words as Mr. Meyer did not received one letter and or phone call concerning any of his letters, objections and motions. Professionals in this case must remember what caused ATP to file bankruptcy protection, that cause BP and the other defendants in Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

RELIEF REQUESTED
In January 2013, with the assistance of the Firms, ATP submitted a claim to BP under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 for loss of profits and earning capacity as a result of the Deepwater Horizon Spill in an amount “not less than” $3,011,534,889.00 (the “OPA Claim”). This BP claim was made prior to ATP’s loss of $3.6 billion of asset value through the course of the bankruptcy. ATP’s 2013 claim “not less than” $3.011 billion and ATP’s “loss” of $3.61 billion of asset value through bankruptcy, the claim, Mr. Meyer would think would and should grow to $6.62 billion.

On October 29, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing (the “Hearing”) for the benefit of certain equity holders of ATP Oil & Gas Corporation (the “Debtor”). At the Hearing, the Bankruptcy Court directed the “Trustee” to file a status report each ninety (90) days relating to the litigation styled ATP Oil & Gas Corp. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. This litigation concerns the OPA claim of “not less than” $3,011,534,889.00.

During this hearing the court assured equity holders that they would be given an opportunity to be heard, if any settlement offer was presented to the court for approval. Certain equity holders are concerned with the potential value of this damage suit being negotiated away in settlement negotiations that the trustee might engage with BP and the others. With this motion Mr. Meyer an equity holders is asking the court to add all equity holders, as a group, in the above mentioned suit against BP and others; as a joinder to this civil action for damages. The motion also addresses five additional actions.

On January 27, 2015, the Trustee filed his 90-Day Status Report [Docket No. 3466] (the “First Ninety-Day Status Report”). In the First Ninety-Day Status Report, the Trustee reported that he attempted to meet with BP to discuss settlement or mediation of the Debtor’s claims against BP, but BP rejected the Trustee’s request.

On April 28, 2015, the Trustee filed his Second 90-Day Status Report on BP Litigation [Docket No. 3527] (the “Second Ninety-Day Status Report”). At the time of the Second Ninety Day Status Report, the Trustee reported that he was working with “his” counsel in the BP litigation, Motley Rice, LLC, to prepare a motion to be filed in the United States District Court Case 12-36187 (Document 3586) for the Eastern District of Louisiana to lift the current stay on discovery and seek authority for the Debtor’s estate to proceed with discovery in the BP Litigation.

On April 28, 2015, the Trustee filed his Supplement to Second 90-Day Status Report on BP Litigation (Docket No. 3528) Exhibit A to the Supplement was a copy of the Motion to Lift Stay and Provide Direction for Limited Reference to Bankruptcy Court (the “Motion”) filed by the Trustee on April 27, 2015 in the BP Litigation.

On July 24,2015 the Trustee filed his Third 90-Day Status Report on BP Litigation [Docket No. 3586] (the “Third Ninety-Day Status Report”). The Trustee reported that since the filing of the Second Ninety-Day Status Report and the Supplement, the District Court where the BP Litigation is pending has taken no action on the Motion, and the Trustee is not able to predict when the District Court will take any action on the Motion. In effect, the BP Litigation remains status quo with the case stayed and no discovery allowed.

As of November 15, 2015, the Fourth required 90 reporting has not been filed with the court. Regardless of the court’s order the trustee has not filed the required reporting. This fact is concerning to equity holders. This lack of action amplifies Mr. Meyer’s comments made in the first paragraph.

ATP Oil & Gas Corporation was the damaged party in Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS against BP and others and the Chapter 7 trustee dissolved the Texas Corporation, ATP Oil and Gas without due process involving the owners of the corporation and the requirements of the Texas Business Corporation Act, Involuntary Dissolution. The potential claim of $3.01billion should have been enough to preserve the corporation. This dissolution was done without a vote and approval of the equity holders and there was never a hearing in the bankruptcy court regarding the dissolution where equity holders could object as required by Texas Business Corporation Act. On January 20, 2014 ATP Oil and Gas filed their yearly Resignation of Registered Agent. On June 2, 2014 the Office of the Secretary of State of Texas issued a certificate of involuntary termination of ATP Oil and Gas Corporation. Stating the entity has failed to maintain a registered agent or registered office address. This required yearly filing was done in January 2014; the document was signed by Mr. Paul Bulmahn. The trustee chose the path where ATP Oil and Gas would be Involuntary Terminated as a Texas Corporation without due process to the equity holders. This tactic to disenfranchise equity holders was also used in having the SEC delist ATP’s securities. Those professionals who were to have a fiduciary responsibility to ATP equity holders were also included in the correspondence between the SEC and Mr. Meyer regarding the delisting activity. This action amplifies Mr. Meyer’s comments made in the first paragraph.

By the actions of the professionals who have a fiduciary responsibility to the equity holders, the owners of ATP Oil and Gas, and have demonstrated their disregard for process and procedure requirements of the Texas Business Corporation Act; including Involuntary Dissolution section 7.12 B., Mr. Meyer asks the court to consider “general rights of succession” and equity holders should be added as a joinder to this case. Whether a shareholder of a forfeited corporation may sue individually or derivatively on behalf of the corporation to enforce a right belonging to the corporation has been addressed in a number of cases over the years. Forfeiture of a corporation’s charter does not prohibit stockholders from obtaining relief and redressing wrongs that injure their right and interest in corporate assets including seeking relief as a damaged party, the owner of the forfeited corporation, in civil damage suits brought by corporation prior to forfeiture.

ATP Oil & Gas Corporation was the damaged party in Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS against BP and others. This civil action is not an “Asset” of the debtor estate in the true meaning of the word. By itself there is no value where commercial lenders would use the possible outcome of this civil action as collateral for any commercial loan, nor would any bonds be sold based on a possible outcome and vendors would not grant credit terms based on this action. In addition to the suit of $3,011,534,889.00 (claim) against BP and others, ATP Oil and Gas Corporation lost $3.62 billion of asset value in this bankruptcy! This lost asset value through bankruptcy should also be claimable. None of the commercial lenders, nor the bondholders and the creditors in this bankruptcy case saw any value in this suit, as none were willing to wait for the possible outcome of this civil suit to receive payment. They were not a damaged party in this civil suit.

This motion is to insure equity holders have a voice as a damaged party in this civil suit against BP and others. First, in insuring that ATP’s claim of not less than $3.01 billion is not negotiated away for the benefit of a few who hold no plaintiff status, and second to insure that ATP’s $3.61 billion of lost assets through bankruptcy are also included in this suit for damages.

This motion asks the court to:
A) As owners of ATP Oil and Gas and a damaged party in this civil action Mr. Meyer asks the court to add the “group” of equity holders as a joinder, plaintiff, to ATP Oil & Gas Corp. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS pending case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
B) In addition to ATP’s claim of “not less than” $3,011,534,889.00; ATP’s $3.61 billion of lost assets through bankruptcy is to be included in this suit for damages.
C) As owners of ATP Oil and Gas and a damaged party to this civil action, the court will appoint a legal representative that will assume a fiduciary responsibility to the equity holders, owners of ATP Oil and Gas; and actively participate as counsel for the debtor, and the equity holders, both damaged parties in this civil action.
D) That legal representative shall manage the legal team hired to present our case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and actively participate in any settlement negotiations between the parties. They will preserve and protect the value of this case to the benefit of the estate and all stakeholders. They will insure the damaged parties in this case receive the justice they seek and will not be pressured into a settlement for the benefit of a few who hold no plaintiff status in this case.
E) I would suggest that the court appoint the Counsel to ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, Mayer Brown LLP, Charles Kelley, Howard S Beltzer and Frederick D Hyman, who have been the counsel to the debtor, ATP Oil and Gas and who has maintained their fiduciary responsibility to ATP Oil & Gas and those that managed the estate in the chapter 11 process. As ATP Oil and Gas Corporation has been involuntary terminated and Mayer Brown still remains counsel to ATP Oil and Gas, they still have a fiduciary responsible to the equity holders, owners of ATP.
F) As ATP Oil and Gas Corporation has been involuntary terminated as a Texas Corporation and without corporate governance I ask the court to allow the Official Committee of Equity Holders to act on behave of the equity ownership group. The court appointed “legal representative” would have the fiduciary responsibility to this committee of equity holders. That committee has been established and if those members are no longer equity holders and or have no interest in serving, the court shall replace these members with equity holders that have an interest in serving on the committee. The court would appoint these replacement members based on equity holders nominations to the court.

ATP case against BP is being handled by Motley Rice LLC and Fayard & Honeycutt. I believe these firms will do an excellent job representing ATP and the owners of the corporation the damaged parties. In addition to their fiduciary responsibility to the court, I believe they also have a fiduciary responsibility to the equity holders, as owners of APT Oil & Gas Corporation. This fiduciary responsibility may be conflicted when confronted with a settlement negotiation; what might be acceptable to the trustee might not be acceptable to the damaged parties.

Equity holders feel compelled to seek this motion to insure as owners of ATP and a damaged party in this civil case, their “due process rights” are protected. The potential claim of $3.01billion should have been enough to preserve the corporation. Regardless of the reasons the professionals in this case might have had, they disenfranchised equity holders and disregarded ATP’s articles of incorporation and the Texas Business Corporation Act, along with ATP equity holder’s rights to corporate governance.

WHEREFORE, Mr. Meyer respectfully requests that the Court enter an order granting the relief requested herein and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Mr. Meyer reserves his rights to supplement and amend this Motion at any time and to raise any other arguments in respect of the proposed Motion. In addition, certain issues raised in Objections could, arguably, also implicate other facets of the above-captioned case. Accordingly, in an abundance of caution, Mr. Meyer, in all of his capacities as an equity holder in ATP Oil and GAS Corporation, reserves all of his rights in the above-reference cases, and nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of any such rights.

Dated: November 16, 2015
Respectfully submitted,

Douglas A. Meyer
429 Suncrest Loop West
Slidell, LA 70458




IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

In re: § Chapter 11 / 7

ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, § Case No: 12-36187

Debtor. § Hon. Marvin Isgur


ORDER APPROVING THE MOTION OF DOUGLAS A. MEYER, EQUITY HOLDER OF COMMON AND “PREFERRED” EQUITY SECURITIES IN ATP OIL AND GAS CORPORATION GRANTING ATP EQUITY HOLDERS JOINDER STATUS IN ATP OIL AND GAS CORPORATIONS CIVIL SUIT; ATP OIL & GAS CORP. v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL, CASE NO. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

Came on for consideration the Motion filed by Douglas A. Meyer, equity holder in ATP Oil and Gas Corporation and after considering the Motion and any response thereto, and being of the opinion that said motion should be granted; it is hereby ORDERED THAT:

A) As owners of ATP Oil and Gas and a damaged party in this civil action, ATP Equity holders shall be added as a joinder, plaintiff, in ATP Oil & Gas Corp. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS pending case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
B) ATP’s $3.61 billion of lost assets through bankruptcy shall be included in this suit for damages.
C) The court will appoint a legal representative that will assume a fiduciary responsibility to the equity holders, owners of ATP Oil and Gas; actively participating as counsel for the debtor, ATP Oil and Gas and the equity holders.
D) That legal representative shall manage the legal team hired to present ATP’s case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and actively participate in any settlement negotiations between the parties. They will preserve and protect the value of this case to the benefit of the estate and all stakeholders. They will insure the damaged parties in this case receive the justice they seek and will not be pressured into a settlement for the benefit of a few who hold no plaintiff status in this case.
E) That legal representative shall be Counsel to ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, Mayer Brown LLP, Charles Kelley, Howard S Beltzer and Frederick D Hyman, who have been the counsel to the debtor, ATP Oil and Gas and who has maintained their fiduciary responsibility to ATP Oil & Gas and those that managed the estate in the chapter 11 process. As ATP Oil and Gas Corporation has been involuntary terminated and Mayer Brown still remains counsel to ATP Oil and Gas, they still have a fiduciary responsible to the equity holders, owners of ATP.
F) As ATP Oil and Gas Corporation has been involuntary terminated as a Texas Corporation and without corporate governance the Official Committee of Equity Holders is to act on behalf of the equity ownership group. The court appointed “legal representative” would have the fiduciary responsibility to this committee of equity holders. This committee has been established and if those members are no longer equity holders and or have no interest in serving, the court shall replace these members with equity holders that have an interest in serving on the committee. The court would appoint these replacement members based on equity holders nominations to the court.


Signed this ___ day of ____________________, 2015




____________________________________
MARVIN ISGUR
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

[Franklin2013]

$1.5 billion less extraction costs. I wonder if this is collateral which is pledged. I suspect someone would have a claim on it.

[biltan]

I agree - 1.49 Billion @ $3.35 PER 1000 CUBIC FEET

[romang]

DEFINITION of 'Trillion Cubic Feet - Tcf' A volume measurement used by the oil and gas industry. A trillion cubic feet (1,000,000,000,000 cubic feet) is a volume measurement of natural gas that is equivalent to approximately one Quad.

8.9 tcf = $$ ???

Then 5%

any one care to speculate? natural gas is worth about $3.35 per 1,000 cubic feet.


My guess would be $1.49 billion for a 5% stake

[Franklin2013]

Thanks romang. 8.9 cubic feet of natural gas is a lot. 5% could translate into a big dollar number even though it is only a small ownership stake. Hopefully the trustee has been notified and doesn't just give it away for an insignificant amount.

[romang]

After digging around Looks like we still have an interest in it.

[romang]

Very interesting. I am not sure if we still own this but i hope.


Also here is FIFTH NINETY-DAY STATUS REPORT ON BP LITIGATION
http://www.kccllc.net/atpog/document/1236187160127000000000001

[Franklin2013]

Hi seismic, I appreciate your posts and work. Does anyone know if ATP still owns 5% of 8.9 trillion natural gas find off of Israel's coast which was just reported. The reuters article reported they do. Any estimates on what that would translate into dollars?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/israeli-group-finds-signs-large-104318132.html;_ylt=AwrC1zGGqKdWhjcAiC_QtDMD;_ylu=X3oDMTByOHZyb21tBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

[biltan]

Why are hesitant to post your motion on this board?

[seismic]

Good evening all, it is a shame that my motion was never posted on the KKCCLLC web page for all to view.

Only the pages “of the order”; I included in my motion was posted.(see page numbers, court document 3658). You will see pages missing!!!!!!

Those pages missing of course “my motion”. Maybe just maybe, folks didn’t want other folks to read my motion.

Did anyone see the motion???? Hell, no one saw the motion!!!!

No hearing , just an order denying my motion. Not even a phone call and or letter. How do you like that justice????? Maybe just maybe, only justice for those willing to pay the legal system!!! ($600 an hour)

It would be interesting for you folks to write the court and ask for a copy of my motion that was denied. As no one saw it!

My next letter to the court; is to ask the court how much it will cost me to appeal the ruling. My bet thousands of dollars!!!!

Justice for only those that can pay!!!!!

It is a must read; Court document 3692. “Douglas A. Meyer seeks standing to sue for losses to ATP. In his motion, he misunderstands whether the derivative rights of shareholders under state law apply after a bankruptcy case has been commenced. Upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case, only the Trustee may sue for the Estate's damages. State law giving derivative standing to shareholders is no longer applicable for redress for injuries to the Estate.”

No dialog, just a ruling! Hells bells, derivative rights don't apply only when stockholders rights of corporate governance where “not denied”. You folks should have read the motion!!!!!

Anyway this is not over for me!!!

[romang]

Its bad...

[TheProfit]

With all those lawyer fee's it seems to me like it wasnt even worth pursuing! Those lawyers are still milking anywhere and everywhere they can..the lawyer cost probably didnt even cover that $15k
Just horrible
Have we lost all hope here??

[romang]

Yup

[TheProfit]

Haliburton Only had to pay back $15k to ATP estate to settle this? Is that how its read?

[romang]

http://www.kccllc.net/atpog/document/1236187151215000000000002

[biltan]

Thanks once again seismic, I have gotten more information from you than I have been able to find anywhere else. Can you list the public info link? Sounds like we may find out more in the first quarter of 2016. Why would it take so long to post your motion?

[seismic]

Good evening ……….. as we have now seen the recent court filings of the FOURTH NINETY-DAY STATUS REPORT ON THE BP LITIGATION filed on 11/17, our trustee has reported:

“The Trustee reports that since the filing of the Third Ninety-Day Status Report, the District Court still has taken no action on the Motion. The Trustee is not able to predict when the District Court will take any action on the Motion. In effect, the BP Litigation remains status quo with the case stayed and no discovery allowed.
The BP Litigation is one of the cases in MDL 2179. The District Court manages MDL 2179 and has selected five moratoria-related cases (the “OPA Test Cases”) to proceed and has stayed all other individual moratoria cases including the BP Litigation. Discovery in the OPA Test Cases remain underway in MDL 2179.”

Not much news from the court ordered update.

So here is some news regarding the test cases.

The OPA Causation Test Cases are: Seven not Five.

Bisso Marine Company, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., 13-0706.
Wadleigh Industries, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al, 13-0810.
Certified Platform Services, LLC v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., 13-1143.
Blake International USA Rigs, LLV v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al, 13-1185.
Trinity Offshore, LLC v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al, 13-1222.
Seahawk Liquidating Trust, et al v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., et al, 13-1386.
Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al, 13-2006.

On November 13, 2015, there was a conference. Present were Duke Williams and Paul Sterbcow for the plaintiffs and Matt Regan for BP.

The OPA Test Cases were reviewed. The parties shall concentrate on the claims of three plaintiffs: Bisso Marine Company, Inc.; Wadleigh Industries, Inc.; and Blake International USA Rigs, LLV.

Bisso.
Document production for Bisso was certified as complete. Bisso shall promptly: (1) resolve clawback issues; (2) complete privilege logs; and (3) amend its responses to BP’s interrogatories. The parties shall meet-and-confer to schedule depositions of Bisso witnesses in January followed by depositions of BP’s witnesses.

Wadleigh and Blake.
Document production for Wadleigh and Blake is not complete. Their document production will be smaller than Bisso. Wadleigh and Blake shall: (1) complete their document production as promptly as possible, including preparation of privilege logs; and (2) amend their responses to BP’s interrogatories.

Stipulations.
The parties shall work on stipulations.

Prior Motions.
The parties shall file Rule 12 motions to dismiss as follows:

a. BP shall file a motion contending that the Moratoria claims must be dismissed for failure to state an OPA claim. The issue to be presented is whether BP can be held liable for damages flowing from government instituted actions such as imposition of a drilling moratorium or the government’s refusal to issue drilling permits.

b. The plaintiffs shall re-urge their motion to strike affirmative defenses, particularly any alleged “superseding cause” defense premised on governmental action or inaction following the spill.

The parties shall file these motions by Wednesday, December 16, 2015.

The oppositions shall be filed by Wednesday, January 6, 2016.

The replies shall be filed by Wednesday, January 20, 2016 following which the motions will be under submission.

Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.
Following resolution of the motions itemized in paragraph 4, the Court may order the parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment in the three Test Cases regarding any remaining issues.

Next Conference.
There will be a further telephone conference on Monday, November 30, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. The Court will provide the dial-in information. Hell the trustee can dial in and listen!!!!!!

This information was obtained from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, public information. You be the judge if maybe, just maybe, the trustee could have shared more information in his 90 status report.

Now the fun,
Some may recall an earlier post reporting that the “The merits of the moratorium claims may effectively be decided as a legal issue raised by motion, after several bellwether trials.”

These three plaintiffs: Bisso Marine Company, Inc.; Wadleigh Industries, Inc.; and Blake International USA Rigs, LLV., would be considered bellwether trials. If these three cases are won, we may not see our case making its way to trial, the risk for us is the trustee negotiating away the value of our claim during this period of motions and positioning.

As I have filed my motion with the bankruptcy court regarding this legal action, that motion has not been posted as yet, I still have concerns which my motion addresses. In my heart and soul, I believe the trustee has no intent to help equity holders, I sure hope I am wrong.

Now for some good news, Bisso Marine being selected as one of the three cases, their corporate attorney is one of the best of the best in our area. If there is a way to win this case, he will find it, and they will fight for every dollar they are asking for. I wish I had as much confidence in our trustee as I do in Bisso’s attorney.

Wadleigh will also give them a good fight. It is going to be an interesting time.

For me it is time to step up.

[seismic]

Good evening ……… as most viewing this board, are also following the court filings. Today the trustee has filed his 90 day, quarterly update, on our case against BP and others.

As I have already mailed my motion to the court, I will be interested in those that read my motion when it appears and disagree with what I am asking of the court.

I can withdraw my motion. Please share as equity owners.

Regards

Doug

[seismic]

Good evening ……. Hope all is well with the folks reading this post. I did say I would be sending a letter to the court, but have decided that a letter just won’t cut the mustard. All of my letters resulted in nothing beneficial, as did my motions. I am not an attorney and my letters and motions lacked any legal preference, which was OK at the time, as I just felt better voicing my concerns.

On this day after veterans day and as an American and veteran of the Vietnam era who served as my father and grandfathers have done, one would think that our justice system would protect those of us that chose not to hire a legal mouth piece costing $350 an hour. (Most beneficial for those lawyers that are slow readers, as they can rack up more billable hours.)

Today, maybe just maybe, the phase” he who represents himself in court is a fool” was originally set in stone by the legal community as fair warning.

The problem is normal folks can’t afford legal representation therefore are passive and go with the flow.

Judges, maybe just maybe, are really just judging the performance of lawyers, the lawyer who presents the best legal argument. Knowing that one side had really missed the opportunity to present a winning argument based on the law, but didn’t present that argument, therefore loses.

The shame is the judge knows the law, but didn’t act because the lack of a legal argument by one party. Shame, shame, shame, glad I am not the judge in that debate. Justice is blind unless you have a great legal presentation, salesmanship, salesmanship, salesmanship even if your pitch is BS. And if no one calls you on your BS, guess what… you win.

And the judge, is just the judge in this debate. And folks like me don’t have the legal knowledge to call one on their BS, therefore we always lose. I like to say blow off by the court as a fool.

We in business all know of the “lessons learned analogy” of after the fact, we should have done this and or that. We failed here but we had success there. For lawyers, you really missed this, you should have presented this argument but didn’t, and the crime the judge knew, but hell, someone has to win and someone has to lose. They are just judging the debate. They can't help one side and not the other regardless of the law and BS presented.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest, I do feel better, even though some may think I am nuts. But it is election time and this makes most of us a little nuts.

Back to the task at hand, no letter to the court, just a motion which I will be mailing to the court on Saturday. Hopefully those that have an interest will see it posted on the courts web page Wednesday or Thursday. If you agree and or disagree please write the court after viewing.

Always, always, always give folks the opportunity to do the right thing. I think after reading my motion you will understand the comment.

You all have a great weekend.

Doug

[OHMYGOD]

As usual, thanks seismic.

Bond holder here

Omg

[biltan]

Bond and Common Stock holder...

[romang]

Very smart post! Time will tell.

[zigjordan]

Owner of bonds & preferred's, been following these posts for 2 years now at least! Still optimistic..

[seismic]

Good Evening,

We have sixty three followers on this site, would you please sign in?

Doug

[seismic]

Thanks for your post,I also own bonds.

[biltan]

I agree that it appears something is in works. Bond purchases have increase substantially since 10/21 to 11/04 compared with last several months. On 10/21 5.8 million bond purchased and as of 11/04 aprox 13.1 million total show purchased during the 10/21 to 11/04 period.

[seismic]

Good evening ……………… as I was expecting to see the court ordered quarterly reporting on the BP status filed no later than last Friday and as that 3rd quarter report has not been filed as we enter the second month of the fourth quarter, one has to wonder what might be up. This alone really doesn’t mean anything, but when you add other factors maybe just maybe something just might be in the works.

For me my enquiries into the test cases have stalled, this could mean folks are tired of me pressing them for information or court ordered confidentially agreements of the folks, including ATP, that know, might restrict them from addressing my questions and or the filing of status reports; in ATP’s case.

I find it usual that my enquiries have struck a brick wall and we have not seen a status report filing. I have recently started preferencing my questions to law firms with “I hate to be a pest”, but could you tell me ……..! It is easier to tell me later after the deal is done, Doug, you were not a client and I couldn’t share that information with you. And that won’t be the first time I have been told that.

Adding; the trustee now declaring a fiduciary responsibility to equity holders makes one wonder. Maybe just maybe this whole thing is just wishful thinking on my part, BUT SOMETHING JUST MIGHT BE IN THE WORKS.

BP increased the amount set aside to pay for the spill to $53.8 billion. That still may not be enough. I am told by one firm that “It’s realistic to price BP’s total cost, including all remaining claims that haven’t been covered by settlements, north of $70 billion.

One party in the test trial is the successor to Seahawk Drilling and claims the business was “essentially destroyed” and forced into bankruptcy. Seahawk alleges losses of $174.8 million. ATP’s initial claim was for not less than $3 billion. If the test cases prevail, there could be billions of dollars more in claims from firms including Marathon Oil Co., which seeks $47 million for lost offshore production, and Vantage Drilling Co., which is claiming $265 million for increased financing costs tied to projects delayed by the offshore ban. The list goes on and on. Looking at the legal costs to date and the estimated costs in the near future; this time next year today’s estimate of north of $70 billion might exceed north of $100 billion.

We may be at a point in time where BP is trying to establish what the dollar value of all of the remaining claims against them and try to resolve them as they did with the gulf state’s settlement.

I would think any group settlement may result in a percentage of the claim value. My question would be with the initial claim of not less than $3 billion and the additional loss of bankruptcy, what might be ATP’s total claim against BP today. I will be asking the bankruptcy court that question in the coming days.

Anyway this is all speculation on my part, still moving forward day by day, the equity holders are the owners of ATP regardless how you slice it. Maybe just maybe the trustee see’s something in the future that might suggest this recent interest in declaring his fiduciary responsibility to equity holders.

Hell he might end up being everyone’s hero in this case. And I might add very, very, rich.

[romang]

Nothing new waiting on new status update from trustee

[rla3rd]

still reading and keeping up

[robbysi]

Please keep me in the loop. I hope someday something eventually.

Thanks,

Robby

[biltan]

Please keep me in the loop if you go to private posts

[biltan]

Still watching and waiting- I appreciate SEISMIC and ROMAN efforts to keep us informed and providing a ray of hope!!

[OHMYGOD]

Seismic... you rock

[jbrooks1]

Thanks. This is my first post. I still own over 100k of common shares. Although I had lost most hope for recovery I do continue to check posts every so often. I do appreciate all of your insight and help.

JB

[slob]

lolol..im still here..yes im guilty of just watching ..reading posts over the past yr or two..just waiting

[cdkrause]

I am still reading and keeping up. This is by far the best way to keep up with the legal "developments". I may not log in, but I check on the boards once or twice a week to see what is going on....

GLTA

[japhbu]

Count me in.
[e-mail]

[seismic]

Sometimes one has to wonder if what they are doing really matters, you look for little signs that might suggest some improvement and yesterday’s filing court document 3633 might offer us a little hope and I mean a just a little.

I have read a lot of court documents submitted by the trustee and filing 3633 is different from the rest. Read section 15: Court document 3633

CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR AUTHORITY TO PAY P2ES HOLDINGS, LLC
[url]15. For the Trustee to satisfy his “fiduciary duty to the debtor, creditors and equity holders, there must be some articulated business justification for using, selling, or leasing the property outside the ordinary course of business.” In re ASARCO LLC, 441 B.R. 813, 823 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (citing cases).
[/url][tag]insert-text-here[/tag]

This is the first that I can remember, where the trustee speaks of his fiduciary duty to “Equity Holders”. Just me, this is a breakthrough! How many filings have we read where anyone in this case speaks of a fiduciary responsibility to “equity holders”???????

So I am asking “Why Now” would we see this?????

I am sure the best of the best in the Houston / New Orleans legal community know each other and I have a few friends that some would say are the best of the best. I surely can’t afford hiring them but have no problem asking them a few questions and seeking their opinion. Maybe just maybe they might be asking a few questions themselves?????

As I have been trying to find a legal means to give equity holders some say in “any” negotiated settlement with BP; I have made a number of “cold calls”. These calls were soliciting a possible legal means to the “fact” that “equity holders” have been disenfranchised from the process, due process denied. It is hard to argue that point when ATP still maintained a board of directors, when the board resigned leaving the court appointed reorganization officer as the only board member this all changed.

At that point, when the ATP board resigned, ATP articles of incorporation were discarded and equity holder’s rights of corporate governance were denied. Provisions and requirements to replace the board were ignored and decisions effecting ATP’s that would require ATP board approval were made by court appointed officials without equity holder’s approval. By not replacing the board of directors when all resigned was corporate governance denied, by not filing the required SEC documents which resulted in the stock being delisted was corporate governance denied. By terminating and dissolving ATP as a business operating in the state of Texas was again corporate governance denied. These were not court ordered activities, these were activities done by court appointed officials, disenfranchising equity holders rights of corporate governance and due process.

I have pointed out numerous examples of the Chief Reorganization Officer and the trustee, where I believe, their actions have disenfranchised “equity holders”. These actions are in the public records and in violation of ATP’s articles of incorporation. I am also on the record with the SEC in my concerns regarding the cancellation of our securities. And with numerous filings, I am also on the record with the court in Houston regarding the Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 bankruptcies. Some will argue what difference does it make ?????

I would say the same thing if it we not for this single “Fact”. Early in this process ATP filed a claim against BP for over $3 Billion dollars. If BP would have manned up and paid the claim no bankruptcy. Because BP refused to pay the claim, ATP file a lawsuit against BP for not less than $3 billion and some change, which was early in the bankruptcy. If and when the value of this suit was to be paid, ATP would be made whole again.

This is a mathematical fact and just for that reason alone ATP should have been allowed the continuation of corporate governance. The Bankruptcy Court did not order any of these actions by the court appointed officers and trustee. With the trustee yesterday speaking of his fiduciary duty to equity holders, that duly also includes insuring that equity holders, the legal owners of ATP, are not disenfranchised from their rights of corporate governance.

The Bankruptcy court, the trustee, the creditors and all the paid professionals were not named as a party with ATP in this suit against BP. They were not damaged by BP in this suit, only ATP and who is ATP the equity holders. This is a legal fact. The only rights these folks have to the monies that will be paid from this suit, is in the claims they have against ATP and for services approved by the court. To suggest that equity holders, those damaged by BP, have no rights in any settlement negotiations is morally wrong.

And for a twist I believe some of the folks I know in the legal community, the best of the best if you will can make a case with Federal District Court, Judge Barbier, that during the course of this suit the legal entity ATP has been dissolved without a bankruptcy court order and or approval of the ATP equity holders, therefore the damaged party rights in this suit of the “Dissolved ATP” should pass down to the legal owners at the time ATP was dissolved, these folks are the “Real Damaged Party” the disenfranchised owners of the plaintiff ATP. It is very clear in ATP’s articles of incorporation that in the case of bankruptcy is not a requirement that business is to be dissolved. Of course it would be interesting to hear how these disenfranchised owners were denied their corporate governance rights in Judge Barbier court in New Orleans making their case for these rights of damage against BP.

Wouldn’t it be the cat’s meow, if a legal means could be presented to Judge Barbier that passed the damaged party rights in this case against BP to the legal owners of the dissolved ATP? I would also be willing to bet the equity holders can’t be legally “on the hook” to pay any of the creditors and or paid professionals in the bankruptcy case. Talking about “Just Reward”.

And now the best part, with a $3 Billion dollar carrot out there, that we would not have to share with the bankruptcy court, one would think we could find the best of the best to represent equity holders. Maybe just maybe some might be having second thoughts about disenfranchising equity holders and denying them the rights of corporate governance.

And saving the best part for last, I am told as of two weeks ago BP has zero interest in settling any of these cases, which gives us a lot of time to make a case in Judge Barbier’s court. Hell there is no rush.

And in closing, if you happen to know in your legal community the best of the best, you might have a dialog with them, be sure you tell them about the $3 Billion dollar carrot.

[OHMYGOD]

Still around, knees getting sore.
??

[RealRaynor]

Sounds interesting