Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
A Chapter 7 conversion would certainly allow the Debtor more time.
However, how would unsecured creditors benefit?
Normally, Section 363 sales produce sales proceeds in excess of original expectations (for example, ResCap).
they did hold of on the motion to appoint a chapter 7 trustee 1 day before the auction. but this can be brought back up
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/1236187/1236187130506000000000005.pdf
they can argue that a chapter 7 sale would give the debtor more time to wind down there assets and also would allow the estate to hold on to the bp claim.
I know u don't think the bp claim is worth much :) but its better then basically giving it away for free to the dip lenders
The OUCC can object till the cows come home but a 363 Sale is basically a fire sale in lieu of a CH 7 that is free and clear of all liens, claims ....and crys of woe.
Chance of success here? less than 1%
Probably need to expand.
DIP lenders as a group are the high bidders. Those who hold both are winners on the DIP side and losers on the Second Lien side (just like everyone else).
Unlikely for DIP lenders also holding Second Lien Notes sharing with those who do not.
chevy I just cant see them getting rid of the unsecured creditors commitie there objections are valid. no money can run to them without the 2nd liens.
so they cant give them a bone to shut them up or am I missing something?
lets hope the dip lenders that already own 2nd liens buy up the remaining 2nd lien bonds then give them a bone
wow..bonds are down to .75 this morning.
If the outlook wasn't grim enough ...it just got grimmer.
Our ONLY and last real hope here is that OpCo is someone with considerable 2nd lien holdings and they issue shares of Newco to the 2nd lien holders. There won't be anything left to salvage if they aren't who we hope they are.
The kinks in the sale will be worked out over the coming days & weeks.
Nice....I am almost same...about $3.85
I have no way of knowing who is saying yes...this can be like reading tea leaves sometimes.
The Debtor selected the bid of CS (which is the DIP lender consortium) as having the highest and best bid submitted at the Auction. The Debtor then takes the Bid and submits it to their BoD for consideration. The Debtor didn't designate a Backup successful Bidder.
I think the sale as it stands today has legitimate issues that the court will say have to be addressed before the court will bless it for whomever takes control.
I don't think anyone expected the bid to just be approved 'as is' and everyone go home - game over. There will be (and no doubt are) negotiations among the parties involved as we speak..there will be a Hearing...and there is also a provision for Adjustments to Purchase Price built into in the Closing.
Based on the strength of the objections they'll know what they have to "fix"..before it will fly.
Now all we need to know is - who is "they"?? :~O
So did I, picked up 80 at $15.40, cost averaged at $36.30 now. If it keeps going down I may just double up.
Now its turning...Here come the short cover orders.....60,000 now bid at .10....Up from here.....
"Buying votes" not limited to WAMUQ.
hmmmm Great find!
so currently the dip and atp are saying yes
but they need the 2nd lien or unsecured to vote yes only 1 of them? for a 3/4 vote ----- or am I reading to much into this?
only way I would see a yes vote from either one of them if the 2nds ****only for example**** got 10% and they agreed to gift say 5% to unsecureds
remember in wamu u are allowed to gift and avoid priority
as long as all party's affected by the gift vote yes on a plan
The DIP, Debtor, 2nd Lien and the Ad Hoc are on the Yeah or Nay committee for the sale. Its in the Bid Procudures.
my average is around 68 but better then 100 lol
atp has weekly calls with the 2nd lien commitie every week if u look at the billings
this was feb 2013 billings not sure if they still do now...
I think are best hope is the unsecured creditors they are allowed to object and they have a extension to object
First of all the 2nd Lien Prospectus (which was drawn up years before the BK) limits what they can onject to and what they can't regarding 1st Lien holders motions in a BK.
But it's hard to say ...this could be a lost cause and they essentially abandoned their post without selling. That may be hard for retailers to wrap their mind around but it happens all the time in BK's. They invest with OPM.
...Or if you were negotiating with the DIP to take control would you be objecting to where things stand today? Probably not.
I do think however the sale has problems and could be denied as it stands today.
I did too.. late yesterday and today...Got to just under $4....Feel pretty good chance to come out good....Will buy more under $2 next week if avail after raise some cash...
did some averaging down today on 2nd liens at these prices it worth a gamble imo
I hope you are right, why are they so quiet?
Great catch....Good info..i say common hits .20+ today...there will be deals made...Bonds will get some money in the end....
Great catch....Good info..i say common hits .20+ today...there will be deals made...Bonds will get some money in the end....
They may have left the building but they haven't sold their 2nd Lien positions...or added to their DIP commitment(s).
Rule 2019 requires supplemental statements
There have been no material changes with this group since 1/23/2013.
I believe they are NOW....NOW that they KNOW they can own it all, you can bet they are...You are exactly right in my opinion....EASIER to deal with bond holders with base of .10 on the dollar.....and common with base of the same...Im sure this is exactly what they are thinking....Their base deal at $690 mil is so cheap, who cares about another $300 mil spread around to get commons and bonds on board, reduce the debt by a couple billion total and add 300 million new shares......Just my opinion ....Do you own gambling.....
“main objectors are the unsecured creditors commitie and they are the only one that have an extension to file an objection”
So that group basically has the power for the rest of us if we discover material information that might change the decision on accepting the dip lenders bid.
My personal opinion, the ad hoc committee has left the building. Why, because the early bond big money has cashed out by now; taking the “big time” lawyers with them. The dip lenders know this and we see the rush to sell off the ATP assets for less than $700M before anyone wakes up. It would be interesting to see, after cashing out, if that big bond money switched sides to the dip. Thank you Chevy!!!
If the ATP debt was reduced by $1.125 billion dollars would that make a difference? You bet it would. So our bonds have a face value of $1,000. As a current bond holder would you take today $250 face value? My bet, 99% of the current holders would jump at that offer, why because the high priced early big money is out. You can track the bonds sales, you can count on the dip lenders are also tracking this information. That’s why the rush to sell the assets. Where has the ad hoc committee been these last 5 months??? Have we seen any objections on “anything” from the committee?
With the number of bonds that have traded the last six month, I would bet the average cost per $1000 of the current bonds holders is less than $100.
That means 99% of the current bond holders might jump at a $250 face value sale. Which means ATP’s debt would be reduced by $1.125 billion. Has anyone from the debtor side made an offer to any of the bond holders?
You do the math, reduce the debt by $1,125 billion do you thank financing could be found to replace the dip financing, you bet it could.
Ask yourself, why didn’t management address the biggest debt first? That would be the $1.5 billion in bonds? Don’t you think finding funding would be easier if that debt number was reduced? After the fact; Oh well, we tried to find funding but we couldn’t. Now we know the dip has allowed a 10% interest being given to management, based on the terms sheet. With T. Paul out, 10% is more than the current management group currently owns. So let’s do nothing, to busy getting the clipper production on line and addressing the courts requirement to offer the gulf assets which included everything. This is the same group that gave themselves the bonuses at year end.
Remember the movie “Wizard of OZ”; classic line in the movie, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”. It’s like speeding, no foul, no harm until you get caught, but officer I didn’t know the speed limit was 55. We didn’t know!!
So what’s next, someone tell me I am wrong here, tell me management is doing everything they can do to preserve our investments. Tell me I am wrong, the ad hoc committee is looking after the interest of us bond holders.
Just me, management doesn’t care about those who purchased common stock at $.15 a share, management doesn’t care about those who purchased the preferred shares at $1.00 a share. And management doesn’t believe they can make deal with current bond holders who purchased bonds at $50.00 per thousand in value.
And the biggest “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” the “change in control” (ownership) requirements the court has put into place, driven of course by management; story line “save the tax credits”. The truth, hell with the tax credits, maintain control of the company until the dip lenders have all of the assets.
Same thing with the common shares value, something is creating demand for the stock, therefore higher market price. When the judge approves the assets sale, those driving the demand will be gone; it will be too late for anyone who has wised up to fight for control, arguing incompetence of management.
Someone tell me why management has not tried to make a deal to reduce the debt by $1.125 billion dollars.
market is confused
I don't understand why the bonds continue to slide while the commons spiked 123% today. Is there some underhanded deal serving the commons (by preserving the NOL under new DIP ownership) and forsaking the bond holders. I don't know what will be left for the bond holders. This is depressing @ 15
By Peg Brickley ATP Oil & Gas Corp. (ATPAQ) on Thursday pushed off a hearing on the sale of its most valuable assets to secured lenders while it fields questions about the deal from unsecured creditors and federal authorities. Unsecured creditors want more cash in the roughly $690 million offer from secured lenders led by Credit Suisse AG (CS, CSGN.VX), while the U.S. Department of the Interior wants to know who is going to pay to clean up drilling assets in the Gulf of Mexico that the buyers are leaving behind.
The judge who must ultimately approve the sale, Judge Marvin Isgur, also had questions for ATP and its proposed new owners at a Thursday hearing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston. What happens, for example, if the small cash component of the $45 million purchase price isn't enough to buy out creditors who hold liens senior to those of the secured lenders? Coming up with answers to that question and others will be the goal of talks that started soon after a Tuesday auction produced a declaration that the secured lenders had won. Judge Isgur set a May 23 hearing to review results of the auction. Three other bidders showed up to vie with ATP's lenders for some assets, but none were interested in taking over a large package. ATP filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last year, loaded with debt and operational issues following a drilling moratorium ordered after the 2010 Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico.
Credit Suisse is offering to cancel about $650 million worth of bankruptcy loans in order to get ATP's Telemark and Clipper projects, some choice shelf assets, and stakes in oil-and-gas operations in the Netherlands and Israel, among other assets. Besides the question of how much secured lenders will have to pay to shake off senior liens on the acquired assets, discussions over the next few weeks will address the question of how much cash lenders will have to add to pay for assets that aren't part of their loan-collateral package, lawyers said. Then there is the cost of concluding the bankruptcy, which means paying for lawyers and advisers to get a Chapter 11 plan in place, or at least shut down unsold operations safely. The Credit Suisse-led buyers are leaving behind "odds and ends," mostly in ATP's shelf operations.
ATP's official committee of unsecured creditors is in discussions with the senior lenders about coming up with more money to cover the cost of winding down the operations that aren't being acquired, said Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP's Evan Fleck, attorney for the creditor panel. The identity of who is going to pay to get the "idle iron"--or unused drilling assets--out of the Gulf is a big worry for the Interior Department, which is also talking to the secured lenders. (Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review covers news about distressed companies and those under bankruptcy protection. Go to http://dbr.dowjones.com.) Write to Peg Brickley at peg.brickley@dowjones.com. Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires
(END) Dow Jones Newswires May 09, 2013 13:05 ET (17:05 GMT) Copyright (c) 2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. 050913 17:05 -- GMT Story ID: MAY092013_DJB_03An Keywords: BANKRUPTCY-RELATED FILINGS, CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY FILINGS & CASES, CORPORATE ACTIONS, ALL COMPANY NEWS, ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS, GENERAL NEWS, CORPORATE RESTRUCTURINGS, ENERGY, INDUSTRIAL Symbols: ATPAQ, CFDAY, CS, CSGN.VX, MTW.XX
2nd liens aren't allowed to object to the dip lenders its in the terms of the loans
atp management did approved the sale they act like its a great thing... crooks
the judge wants to have a plan and sale together he suggested
he said this would help with all the objections to the sale
and the main objectors are the unsecured creditors commitie and they are the only one that have an extension to file an objection
The trustee represents the interests of 2nd Lien Bondholders.
The trust company is responsible for hiring legal counsel and paying the bills. The issuer is responsible for reimbursement.
Certain holders formed an Ad Hoc group. Normally, the goal of such a group is consensus building when working with other stakeholders in developing a reorganization plan. This is important because secured creditors are not members of the OCC.
Romang .... seriously I need some help here, as the Ad Hoc group left the building?
There has to be a problem somewhere, don’t recall seeing anything from the Ad Hoc group since January 2013.
The Bank of Mellon Trust Company is the trustee, but have this bad feeling no one is representing the bond holders interest since January.
Please someone tell me I am wrong and lead me to some court filings by this group post January 2013.[/I]
BuckeyeOil, seriously I need some help here. Has the Ad hoc group left the building?
There has to be a problem somewhere, don’t recall seeing anything from the Ad Hoc group since January 2013.
The Bank of Mellon Trust Company is the trustee, but have this bad feeling no one is representing the bond holders interest since January.
Please someone tell me I am wrong and lead me to some court filings by this group post January 2013. [/I]
There has to be a problem somewhere, don’t recall seeing anything from the Ad Hoc group since January 2013.
The Bank of Mellon Trust Company is the trustee, but have this bad feeling no one is representing the bond holders interest since January.
Please someone tell me I am wrong and lead me to some court filings by this group post January 2013.
Chevy .... I don’t know if this will help but look at court document 1489-1, you have to go back to page 78 and 79 of 90.
It lists the third DIP Amendment Lenders of the $117M. The court should have a public copy of signers of the Dip Credit Agreements.
It's true I don't want to start a false rumor or give false hopes. Let's just talk about a few possibilities ok.
The only reason I'm in this and started the ATPG.GE board is that I saw a 2019 had been filed and I posted it in Post #5 ...and when that group had some changes I posted those changes again in post #138. Here is a link to post # 138 below>
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=83725957
It has always been my thought that the Ad Hoc group (or individuals from that group) would be the most likely buyer(s) if the numbers worked.
I expected them to be bidders at the auction...and they weren't...but that doesn't mean they didn't or couldn't buy ATP another way.
Two (2) out of the eight (8) hedge funds owned 1st Lien DIP loans AND 2nd lien notes. It's possible these two Hedge funds (or more) made a deal with the DIP lender group to buy ATP after the DIP lenders bought it with a cashless credit bid. Most of the DIP lenders just want their money back asap and have no interest in taking over and running an oil company... but its very possible some did come here for control and their sole purpose for being here was to take over ATP.
So how could that help us 2nd lien holders? If you look at the numbers you'll see both of these hedge funds have large stakes in both the 1st lien and 2nd lien notes. There isn't anything that would have stopped them from negotiating with the DIP lenders to buy the company and coming out with a POR that gives 2nd Lien holders equity in newco.
We have 2 hedge funds that had a big influence on the DIP "team" and who also have a big influence and a stake in the 2nd lien holders future. I see motivation.
Could that happen? yes.
Will it? I don't know. All of those 2nd lien hedge fund guys have taken a bath (like everyone else here) and for all I know may have left the building a long time ago. For them it's just a loss of OPM (other peoples money). You win some ...and you lose some.
That's why I said we need to know who Opco is. And if it's who I hope it is then maybe the BP claim might be ours after all :~O
* Do not buy or sell on this discussion. It's just talk at this point. There's no way of knowing if any of this will happen guys.
Romang ..... thanks for the update. I have been in meetings most of the day, a few questions if you don’t mind.
The judge did not approved the sale today, is that correct? And he has asked for additional information by the parties before he will rule on the sale approval, is that correct?
Did you hear if the ATP board approved the sale? During the hearing today did the ATP management seem too support the sale?
Was there any objections of the sale, voiced today by anyone?
In response to:
"What if OpCo isn't the "bad" guys? I don't want to start any rumors or give false hopes..but we don't know who they are or what they plan to do. This isn't over. I would expect the subsidiaries to file CH 11 sometimes soon and we'll see what that holds. 2nd Lien holders are now coming to the plate..its our turn at bat."
Doesn't look like there is much value left (after satisfying DIP debt) to satisfy any meaningful part of the 2nd lien bonds, unless the UK assets and equipment & joint venture assets are worth something?
Any info is appreciated. Thanks in advance.
I think it goes to the DIP as in the APA it says all period prior, during and after Closing date (see below).
When you say they got UK, does that mean just the notes receivable or the equity interest as well?
What assets are not part of the overall sale then?
(e) (i) all Hydrocarbons and Accounts Receivable produced from or
attributable to the Properties during or attributable to any periods of time prior to,
on or after the Closing Date, and all proceeds attributable thereto, and (ii) all
Hydrocarbons and Accounts Receivable produced from or attributable to any
Excluded Properties (other than Gomez) during or attributable to any periods of
time prior to or on the Closing Date, and all proceeds attributable thereto;
just got done with the hearing DIP did get the clipper, titan ,bp claims as chevy said, uk etc etc etc. Basically management is run by the DIP lenders so they can then get future jobs with the new Dip company.
looks like the judge wants a plan and disclosure statement to go along with the sale.
unsecured creditors commitie are working with the debters and Dip lenders to resolve there objections. I don't see how they see one cent unless 2nd liens get paid in full without violating the absolute priority rule... they also mention valuation at the hearing the creditors commitie
does anyone have a idea if the cash coming in from clipper etc goes to the estate or does the dip also take this. im wondering because the sale could take a few months to complete
Also the Judge is a fair man....
From Isgur's page:
6. Telephonic Participation:
a. Dial in at least 5 minutes before your hearing is scheduled to begin.
b. Parties are always permitted to participate by dial-in without any permission or notification to the Court except:
i. Dial-in participation is not allowed for chapter 13 panel hearings.
ii. Witnessesmaynotbepresentedbydial-inandwitnessesmaynotbeexaminedby telephone, except in emergency situations if the Court determines to waive this prohibition for good cause.
iii. Parties may not participate by cell phone, but may listen to hearings from their cell phone..
c.
Parties participating by speakerphone must assure that no background noise is transmitted. Accordingly, no typing, intercom announcements, or other interruptions should occur. If such interruptions are unavoidable, then speakerphone usage is not permitted.
d. Do not place your telephone on hold. If you dial in to a hearing, you are participating in a court proceeding and are bound by the normal rules of courtesy and attention.
e. If a technological problem arises, the hearing will continue without the participation of dial- in participants. The Court will not delay hearings for signal problems or interference. Accordingly, persons choosing to attend a hearing by dial-in do so at their own risk of a technological failure.
f.
Starting January 1, 2012, the following procedures must be used for dial-in participation.
i. The dial-in number is 1-712-432-3100. You will be responsible for your own long-distance charges. This dial-in number should be used regardless of the location of the hearing (Houston, Brownsville, McAllen).
ii. You will be asked to key in the conference room number. The conference room number is 815978. Once this number is entered, you will be connected live to the courtroom.
iii. Once you are connected, you will be able to hear persons speaking in the courtroom and other persons on the call addressing the Court. You will not be able to address the Court until the Court addresses you or you request to speak and the Court grants the request.
iv. If you wish to address the Court, you must press 5*. Do not press 5* until you need to address the Court. Within 5 seconds, the Court will receive a signal that
Court Procedures (Judge Marvin Isgur) Revised December 23, 2011 Page 3you wish to speak. When the Court calls on you, you will hear a recorded message that your line has been unmated. At that time, you can be heard.
v. When you are done, the Court will again terminate your ability to speak. You may press 5* if an additional issue arises that you wish to address with the Court.
old but good
17. The Debtor has the burden of demonstrating that there is a sound business justification for the sale of the assets. See, e.g., In re Gulf Coast Oil Corp., 404 B.R. 407, 422
(Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2009) (“The movant must establish a business justification for the transaction
and the bankruptcy court must conclude, from the evidence, that the movant satisfied its fiduciary obligations and established a valid business justification.”). The appeasement of the
DIP Lenders is not a sufficient business reason. See Encore Healthcare, 312 B.R. 52 (Bankr.
E.D. Pa. 2004) (“[T]here must be some business justification, other than appeasement of major creditors, before the bankruptcy judge may order such disposition under § 363(b).”).
18. One of the most important factors for the Court to assess when determining
whether or not the Debtor has expressed a sound business purpose for the sale is whether the
asset is increasing or decreasing in value. Committee of Equity Security Holders v. Lionel Corp.(In re Lionel Corp.), 722 F.2d 1063 (2nd Cir.1983). This factor weighs against this Court
finding that there is a sound business purpose for the sale at this time. The value of the Clipper
wells is increasing over time as more production information becomes available because the
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/1236187/1236187130416000000000021.pdf
Yes it is!!!!
thanks BP great objection
http://www.kccllc.net/documents/1236187/1236187130508000000000020.pdf
Gomez ?? What Gomez? As far as I could see, all Gomez assets are gone. Hope is NOT an option in investing. ATP Sharholders were sold down the river by the CRooked Mgmt who "did the DEAL with the DEVIL".
I'm not where I can verify so nothing official here. I think it's in the $800MM range.
ATP knew they were getting into financial trouble before the filing of course but they couldn't stop the construction on it because it would costs more to stop than keep going (not sure how or why but that's what the company said).
When ATP filed BK last August the DIP lenders (as part of the DIP terms) forced ATP to stop work on the project.
Octabuoy was built by a Chinese company called Cosco and was 98% complete when construction stopped.
As recent as January of this year ATP & Cosco held talks re: a possible sale but not sure where it went from there ??
You can read about that here>
http://www.upstreamonline.com/hardcopy/news/article1314348.ece
Can someone help me understand what is actually left of any value if the DIP bid is approved by the judge? I'm trying to find a ray of hope. I was looking through the subs/non-debtor entities of some value...
1) 51% interest in ATP Infra Partners - holds Innovator offshore production facility, BV of $88.8m as of 11/30/2012 - is this part of the DIP sale or remaining to the rest of the creditors after the sale?
2) Titan & ATP Neth - this is taken all by the DIP as part of the "purchased equity" per the APA? Nothing left for non-DIP in terms of asset and/or equity interest?
3)ATP UK - but the DIP technically has a large interco recv on them, and they have a negative BV of -92m, so limited value here?
4) ATP Israel - wasn't the license taken away, so there is limited value here as well?
5) Gomez - what happens with Gomez, as reading the APA, I was under the impression that it was not part of the deal?
Would appreciate any insight.
Followers
|
6
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
588
|
Created
|
09/28/12
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
For current price click on FINRA Link below
http://cxa.gtm.idmanagedsolutions.com/finra/BondCenter/BondDetail.aspx?ID=MDAyMDhKQUU4
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |