ATPG Senior 11.875% 2nd Lien Bonds (fka ATPG.GE)

[romang]

Thanks for the reply. I suspect you are right. I guess its just the cost of doing business You win some you loose some.

I'm not sure if I should just take 12 bucks a bond and forget about it or just let it ride out.

Either way I look fore ward to more discussions on future bankruptcy's with you and IE!

[56Chevy]

Romang my good friend...it's time to throw in the towel on this one.

Do you know how rare it is for a DIP lender on a $3 Billion dollar BK to be short on recovery??...and not only that but short by such a wide margin?? R U kidding me!

The answer is - it's extremely rare.

The DIP lenders aren't the bad guys here...they really aren't. They're not getting out this without a black eye of their own.

This oil company was so grossly over-leveraged it was beyond ridiculous.

The whole world had a chance to bid on this company and the whole world said - NO thanks... it isn't worth what the DIP lender has in it.

Think about that for a moment.

I hate losing but the real culprit imo is management & the BoD.

These are the same guys that paid Preferred holders a dividend just a month before filing BK. These are the same guys that handed out bonus's to themselves last Christmas.

Were there ever any adults in the room when these guys made a decision to do something?! Incredible as it seems it appears there weren't.

So I ask you:

Are these guys - 1) completely out of touch with reality ..or 2) woefully incompetent ...or 3) so flaming arrogant they should win a trophy...or 4) all of the above.

Its a tough choice ...but pick one.

Don't bother the Judge with letters ...I'm sure he's having a hard time deciding which one they are too.

I'm leaning towards #4.

[56Chevy]

re: ATP - I can hear the late great Dallas Cowboy and SMU grad Dandy Don Meredith singin' "Turn out the lightsss...the partys over".

[romang]

true I don't mind the sale I just wanted proper valuations. after the sale the dip lenders will still have a 200 million claim as it stands today. At the very least they should have to use up there total claim on the auction.

[Enterprising Investor]

Highly unlikely the sale will be undone.

Consideration may change, but the DIP group was the highest bidder.

[romang]

I was thinking before the sale happens.

[Enterprising Investor]

No need to write a letter. Case is already heading towards Chapter 7.

[romang]

If everyone else could also do the same would be great


I just wrote the court asking to convert this case to a chapter 7 simple letter. Also asked for valuation hearings on the assets the dip was getting.

[romang]

that makes sense but I did here that the dip lenders would still have a 200 million claim after the sale since they didn't use all there debt up on the sale

crazy isn't it.

[56Chevy]

Theoretically the DIP lenders will be long gone by the time Anadarko has those wells decommissioned.

The ATP case would go to Ch 7 once the sale is complete to the DIP lenders and newco takes over.

Once they're out of the picture it will just be the 2nd lien holders and unsecured creditors left to vie over any potential settlement with BP ...and that's when the Anadarko administrative claim would kick in.

make sense?

[romang]

Thanks for the reply. I agree with you on the moral basis. But Im sure the dip lenders will try to get them paid last.

have a nice weekend

[56Chevy]

There is some debate but I think and strongly believe at the end of the day an Anadarko's claim would legally hold up as an administrative claim. The article agrees in its conclusion.

The fact that you can even go after the previous owner of the well to clean up your mess is astounding. Set the legal arguments aside - can you imagine selling your house to someone and 6 years later the guy defaults on his mortgage and the court comes back to you and says since you were the previous owner of the home you have to make it right...plus you have no legal recourse to recoup the money if this loser has a financial windfall. Would you ever sell another house??!!! Oh hell no!

Aside from the ATP case we're going to see allot more of this decommissioning of abandoned off-shore oil wells become a HUGE HUGE issue.

I find it hard to believe it costs in the hundreds of Millions of dollars to decommission a well but apparently it does. And if that's the case what would stop other financially unstable oil companies from filing BK just to avoid their decommissioning obligations? Nothing...especially if they know they can stick it to the guy they got the well from! This makes for bad law.

I think the emergence of domestic land-based shale oil is a negative game-changer for GoM offshore oil companies.

[romang]

I was wondering would this mean that the future claim would be under 2nd liens in priority.
As the article says or is this like comparing apples to oranges?



Yes

"relation to a potential future claim Anadarko would have if they pay to decommission the Gomez properties?"


Sorry for the confusion

[56Chevy]

The only thing that would come close to saving the estate now is (at minimum) $1B dollars in cash.

Not sure I completely understand the question. Is this in relation to a potential future claim Anadarko would have if they pay to decommission the Gomez properties?

[romang]

Chevy would this save the estate? Or is this not the same?



Effects of contract rejection

If a bankrupt debter rejects an executor contract, the debtor's estate will generally lose any benefit from the contract and will be liabile for damages for the breach, entitling the nondebtor party to file a proof of claim for unsecured prepetition and rejection damages. in other words, the creditor's breach of contract claim will rank below administrative expense claims, priority claims and secured claims.

http://www.lockelord.com/files/News/a33d9012-62df-4b48-8199-6b456916fe74/Presentation/NewsAttachment/a8094f43-fefc-4c76-b6a4-6d3e4ddd94bf/Decommissioning-Plugging.pdf

[56Chevy]

Nothing is ever easy in a BK. I still don't know if the BP lawsuit/claim has indeed been returned to the estate but for now let's pretend that it has.

Anadarko, as predecessors-in-interest on the Gomez Properties, is on the hook for the $100MM+ decommissioning costs and therefore would be entitled to file an administrative claim on the estate.

So? So that would mean that the first $100MM+ in any settlement ATP would potentially get from BP belongs to Anadarko and comes right off the top. Since I don't envision a settlement half that much it means the 2nd lien holders have no hope with or without the BP claim ticket.

The only question I have through this entire ATP BK fiasco is rhectorical - Could ATP Oil & Gas have been managed any worse than it was! I'm not sure anyone was prepared for this level of incompetency.

I am a free market guy and pro domestic oil E & P...but I have to say that just because some guys can own an oil company doesn't mean they should. These ATP guys shouldn't be allowed to ever go near an oil company again ..let alone run one imo.

[romang]

Im hearing the motion was granted in part and denied in part. By the Judge.

[romang]

By Peg Brickley ATP Oil & Gas Corp. (ATPAQ) has overcome some opposition to the proposed sale of its deep-water drilling assets to its lenders, with a deal that provides $1.8 million to cover the costs of wrapping up the company's bankruptcy case. The official committee of unsecured creditors bargained for the cash to fund continued Chapter 11 efforts if the sale of the driller's most valuable assets to secured lenders led by Credit Suisse Group AG (CS) is ultimately approved.

A hearing continues before Judge Marvin Isgur in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston. Judge Isgur hasn't yet said whether he will approve the deal. The bulk of the sale price, $690 million, is in the form of a "credit bid," or offer to extinguish bankruptcy loans drawn down by ATP as it struggled through a difficult bankruptcy. Hurt by the drilling moratorium that followed the 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling disaster, ATP was plagued by a series of operational issues after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in August 2012. Missed business targets translated into tighter and tighter terms on bankruptcy financing.

Banks marched ATP to the bankruptcy auction block, where they defeated competitors with a credit bid. ATP says the deal with secured lenders is worth $1.4 billion or more, when liabilities that the buyers are taking on are factored in. The alternative to the sale is liquidation, ATP says. Judge Isgur said Friday he is "worried" about ATP's environmental liabilities, which will fall largely on regulators and on prior owners of the drill sites. In addition to the $1.8 million so-called "wind-down budget" for the Gulf of Mexico driller, lenders agreed to pay more than $44 million to federal ocean energy regulators to cover the cost of decommissioning wells left behind after the proposed sale, lawyers told a bankruptcy judge Thursday. That payment relieves ATP of the burden of being assessed as much as $153 million, a claim that would eat up far more than the scant cash that will be in the bankruptcy coffers, assuming the sale is approved, according to evidence ATP provided during Friday's court session. The environmental cleanup contribution and the provision of a bankroll for final bankruptcy costs are new additions to the lender takeover proposal, negotiated over weeks when ATP struggled to get the deal in front of the judge without too much opposition.

The unsecured creditor panel said lenders could not be permitted to take ATP's valuable Clipper and Telemark deepwater oil drilling operations, leaving behind nothing but abandoned wells and mounting environmental liabilities. In response to that criticism, lenders are providing about $100 million in cash to cushion ATP's final days, said Mayer Brown LLP's Charles Kelley, attorney for the company, at Thursday's hearing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston. Lenders are also setting aside $55 million in cash to pay suppliers and contractors that worked on the Clipper and Telemark projects, and they have claims that trump the rights of secured lenders. So-called mechanics and materialmans liens are high-priority claims that may be senior even to the bankruptcy loans that the Credit Suisse group is trading in for ATP's producing wells. (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 [e-mail]

[romang]

I couldn't have said it any better.

[56Chevy]

And the Debtor is proposing to give the DIP Lenders even more value not reflected in these reports in the form of rights to significant litigation claims [i.e. BP] that are not subject to the DIP Lenders’ liens and intercompany Claims and equity interests in the Debtor’s subsidiaries that are currently property of the estate.

Not that I think the 2nd lien holders have a snowballs chance in Hades going forward but a credit bidding lender must provide additional value for unencumbered assets otherwise it is acquiring unencumbered assets for free.

imo No one knows how much, or even if, ATP will be successful on any level in its lawsuit with BP. Never-the-less that claim has value therefore the DIP lenders should have to pay real cash over and above their credit bid to acquire it.

And to take it a step further that claim should be marketed (just as all the other deep water assets were supposedly marketed) to insure the highest bid(s).

[romang]

just have a hunch

[56Chevy]

Joinders are an efficiency of the justice system.

But I doubt the UCC removes their objection anyway.

Why do you think they would??

[romang]

Thanks this gives me a little hope the hearing starts back at 1:30 central.

I have a feeling the creditors commitie has another motive and will sell us out. that's why I was happy bny mellon filed a joinder.

chevy if the creditors committee withdrawals there objection. Can the bank NY mellon still use it? since they filed a joinder

[56Chevy]

They can't object on the core issues re: the DIP lenders rights...correct...but they can object to procedural issues.

[romang]

chevy or EI I thought 2nd lien bonds couldn't object to the sale? maybe bny mellon is allowed to.





JOINDER OF THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., AS INDENTURE TRUSTEE, IN OBJECTION OF OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS TO DEBTOR’S EMERGENCY MOTION PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 363 AND 365 AND BANKRUPTCY RULES 2002, 6004 AND 6006 FOR ORDER (I) APPROVING THE SALE OR SALES OF SUBSTANTIALLY ALL OF THE DEBTOR’S SHELF AND DEEPWATER PROPERTY ASSETS FREE AND CLEAR OF CLAIMS AND LIENS AND

(II) APPROVING THE ASSUMPTION

AND ASSIGNMENT OF CONTRACTS AND LEASES

[Related to Docket Nos. 1252, 1419, 1591, 2058]

[56Chevy]

I think what this is saying is the BP lawsuit was never marketed as an asset in the form of a claim that went with the sale.

[romang]

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/1236187/1236187130619000000000010.pdf


And the Debtor is proposing to give the DIP Lenders even more
value not reflected in these reports in the form of rights to significant litigation claims that are
not subject to the DIP Lenders’ liens and intercompany Claims and equity interests in the
Debtor’s subsidiaries that are currently property of the estate. Moreover, neither the litigation
rights nor the subsidiary equity interests were ever marketed to third parties, having been listed
Case 12-36187 Document 2058 Filed in TXSB on 06/19/13 Page 5 of 20
6
3273321v1
as “Excluded Assets” under the form asset purchase agreement provided as an exhibit to the Sale
Motion.

[cpaok1]

ANY NEW PRODUCTION DATA ON CLIPPER WELLS ?

Just curious if there has been any prOduction information disseminated ?

[romang]

forbes.com

Bankruptcy: ATP, DIP Lenders At Odds Over Budget, Look For Path Forward
Alan Zimmerman, Contributor
ATP Oil & Gas’ DIP lenders say they have reached an impasse with the company’s management over a budget for, in the first instance, maintaining the company’s operations pending the closing of the DIP lenders’ purchase of ATP’s Gulf of Mexico assets, and subsequently for the company’s post-closing wind-down, but despite escalating rhetoric on both sides, the extent to which the dispute at this time threatens the transaction itself is unclear.

On the one hand, in a notice filed with the bankruptcy court on June 10, the DIP lenders declared the DIP facility in default, a move that would have, among other things, prevented the company from using the cash collateral it holds to pay any of its expenses. According to court documents, the DIP lenders terminated the DIP facility due to “the inability (or unwillingness) of the debtor to propose a reliable and appropriate budget for the use of cash collateral going forward.”

But on the other hand, the DIP lenders also said in a June 12 bankruptcy court filing that despite the company’s “apparent lack of commitment to the sale process,” and their concern that the company “will be unable to propose a workable, reliable budget,” the lenders “continue to believe that” the asset sale is the “best outcome” for the company and that they “remain willing to agree” to a budget. Indeed, in the filing the DIP lenders said they would agree to a two-week budget to extend the company’s use of cash collateral “in order to permit a final opportunity to come to an agreed budget that can take this case through the sale and a wind-down.”

For its part, the company called the DIP lenders’ actions “heavy-handed tactics in the middle of difficult negotiations over a prospective wind-down budget,” adding that it has “worked diligently and in good faith to negotiate and procure a budget that will allow the debtor to close the sale and fund the payment of necessary administrative expenses during the pre-closing period, and provide some possibility of confirming a Chapter 11 plan.”

Meanwhile, a status conference that is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. CDT this afternoon at the Houston bankruptcy court may provide some needed clarity to the situation. And as reported, a hearing to approve the proposed asset sale is scheduled for June 20, after being twice delayed, first from May 31 and next from June 4, respectively.

According to a statement the DIP lenders filed with the bankruptcy court yesterday ahead of the status conference, the lenders say they have been working toward a June 28 closing of the asset sale, but reached an impasse with the company in negotiating a cash collateral budget due to the lenders’ “fundamental lack of confidence in the [company’s] budget estimates,” and their “concern with the decisions being made by debtor’s management, including the debtor’s chief restructuring officer, as to the best uses for debtor’s available cash (and whether such decisions are based on maximizing the value of the debtor’s assets or on other interests that may not be an appropriate basis to drive decisions on these important matters).”

As an example, the lenders cited a budget the company proposed on June 4 that deferred payment of $20 million related to the company’s “Clipper” project in the Gulf of Mexico, “risking further delays and vendor issues relating to this important project,” while also proposing to pay lease operating and other costs with respect to the “Gomez” project, which the DIP lenders described as “a property that has been shut-in since the end of April, produced no value to the estate for months prior to the shut-in and is the subject of a pending motion for abandonment by the debtor.”

As another example, the lenders cited the company’s proposed budget to pay $22 million in lease operating expenses, but the company’s corresponding inability to “directly tie this amount back to any specific payables.”

For its part, in a response to the DIP lenders’ statement the company also filed yesterday with the bankruptcy court, ATP said that the lenders’ assertion that the company “has been unable and/or unwilling to propose a reliable and appropriate wind-down budget … simply is not the case.”

Rather, the company said, its “good faith efforts” to produce a budget “have been undermined by the DIP agent’s and DIP lenders’ desire to postpone closing – although not the approval of the sale itself – for a period of up to two months.” Indeed, the company said it was only told about this closing delay earlier this week.

The company did not specifically state, however, what date the lenders said they wanted to close the deal, and whether it was later than June 28, as the lenders said in court documents.

In any event, the company said that proposed delay in closing the deal, and the DIP lenders’ “inability…to finalize the terms of the asset-purchase agreement, place the debtor in a difficult position to forecast future expenses.”

The company noted in the filing that it would not “respond to the many accusations and personal attacks” allegedly leveled against it by the DIP lenders, but added that the bankruptcy court should not “misconstrue its silence as agreement.” The company said it would be prepared to respond at the status conference if asked about the lenders’ alleged “unfounded accusations, ” underlining the rift between the two sides.

Notwithstanding the bad blood, however, one fact asserted by the DIP lenders in its June 12 statement went uncontested by the company, and it may turn out to be the key consideration that drives the case. Other than the DIP lenders’ $691 million credit and cash bid (see “ ATP’s DIP lenders top asset auction with $691M credit/cash bid,” LCD News, May 7, 2013), ATP received only three other qualified bids for its assets out of 70-100 or so potential purchasers contacted by the company, but none of those bids, in the DIP lenders’ words, “contemplated the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets [or] … provided any significant value to the estate.” – Alan Zimmerman

[56Chevy]

What a nightmare.

I think this strengthens the argument BP will have that most of ATP's problems stemmed from being grossly mismanaged...spill or no spill.

[romang]

By Peg Brickley ATP Oil & Gas Corp.

(ATPAQ) is walking away from an oil-drilling platform in the Gulf of Mexico, leaving it unmanned and a threat to public safety at the start of hurricane season, attorneys told a bankruptcy judge Thursday. The Houston company's Gomez Field deepwater drilling operation is not part of the package that lenders, led by an affiliate of Credit Suisse AG (CS), are trying to buy in a deal that would leave little or no cash in the Chapter 11 coffers. At a hearing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston Thursday, ATP won permission to abandon Gomez and to cut a deal with lenders that means the company can cover essential expenses, at least for a few more weeks. ATP filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last year, blaming the after-effects of the drilling moratorium that followed the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

What lenders want to buy out of the bankruptcy are the money-making oil operations, particularly ATP's Clipper and Telemark hub projects. The rest, including Gomez and its aged drilling rig, will be left behind in an increasingly troubled Chapter 11 case. ATP's unsecured creditors have protested the sale to lenders, and the company has been wrestling with banks all week, trying to avert a sudden shut-off of cash. The company went to court Thursday, winning permission to abandon the Gomez project, while striking a temporary truce with lenders that will reopen the flow of cash, which was shut off in advance of Thursday's hearing. Judge Marvin Isgur signed off on a temporary emergency order that allows ATP to cover payroll and essential expenses while talks continue about the shape of the proposed lender takeover. Unsecured creditors want lenders to cover the cost of winding down ATP's unwanted business operations and wrapping up the Chapter 11 proceeding. Lenders say they have agreed to allot $44 million to environmental safety and shutdown costs, in a deal with regulators, part of their drive to get court approval on the sale.

Thursday's hearing in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston focused mainly on the Gomez operation, which ATP says is too costly to keep going. The U.S. Department of Interior asked that ATP not be permitted to shake off its responsibilities to clean up after the unprofitable Gomez drilling platform. An affiliate of Andarko Petroleum Corp. joined in, protesting that ATP's lenders should not be allowed to strip out assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars in bankruptcy and leave the Gomez project in dangerous shape. "We don't believe the debtor can abandon its property in violation of laws designed to protect public health and safety," said Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP's Lydia Protopapas, attorney for Andarko. "What do you want me to do?" Judge Isgur asked. "They don't have money. The DIP lender says, 'Fine, close them down. We don't care.'" "DIP" is shorthand for the $650 million-plus bankruptcy loan that lenders have offered to cancel as part of the sale.

The government wrangled an agreement from ATP that the costs of a safe shutdown of the Gomez drilling operation--estimated by regulators at about $153 million--will rank as a top-priority expense in ATP's bankruptcy case. That doesn't mean the Gomez bills will be paid, as the Chapter 11 case is running dangerously low on cash. Other operators in the Gulf of Mexico are likely to wind up cleaning up after ATP, Judge Isgur said. In testimony Thursday, Andarko executive Gary Mitchell said leaving the Gomez floating drilling rig--the 37-year-old ATP Innovator--unmanned could mean "a constant threat of hydrocarbons going into the Gulf of Mexico," as well as drifting equipment crashing into neighboring operations and tangled lines. "It would be a horrible spaghetti mess, as you can imagine," Mr. Mitchell said. Judge Isgur overruled Andarko's objection, citing case law that he said bars him from pushing aside the secured lender's liens and ordering the banks to free up cash to protect the public health and safety.

Regulators, he said, have the option of going after companies that were formerly associated with the Gomez operation to cover the cleanup costs instead of trying to chase ATP for money it may not have. (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 [e-mail] Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires (END) Dow Jones Newswires June 13, 2013 16:41 ET (20:41 GMT) Copyright (c) 2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. 061313 20:41 -- GMT Story ID: JUN132013_DJB_02oZ Keywords: BANKRUPTCY-RELATED FILINGS, CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY FILINGS & CASES, CORPORATE ACTIONS, ALL COMPANY NEWS, ENERGY Symbols: ATPAQ, CFDAY, CS, CSGN.VX

[romang]

Great Job on those letters to the judge.

[alertmeipp]

If I remember correctly, in Mirant case, the equity committee successfully got some warrants on the new co. such that if the future value of the new co passed certain valuation, current shareholder will get benefited. Not sure if it applies here as there maybe no plan to even re-list the company...

[romang]

posted by seismic



seismic Friday, June 07, 2013 6:55:13 PM
Re: romang post# 1864 Post # of 1866

Romang,

Sorry about last week, was tied up in meetings all afternoon and missed free time. It looks like I missed free time again today.

I did listen to the hearing last week, the Judge did say he had received twenty plus letters objecting to the 363 sale approval. Seems letters are helping. He did tell the dip lenders they didn’t have a “done deal” . The judge did say … why approve the sale when the debtor is showing some profitability, as if he was asking the debtor to offer something of a reorganization plan.

There was a discussion regarding any additional cash to be paid by the dip lenders would be paid as directed by the court and not ear marked by the Dip Lenders. The dip lenders have no say in the use of the proceeds from the 363 sale. They didn’t seem too happy about that.

An interesting observation, I stayed on the line after the hearing and listened, the mic was still on. The court was adjourned and folks moved out of the court room, but not all. Some stayed round 10 to 15 minutes. This has happened twice when I listened in. You might want to hang on for a few minutes, I think the folks that stayed to talk thought the mic was off. Maybe I shouldn’t have said this here but next week everyone should be listening and they might want to hang on for a few minutes.

The letters are working and everyone should send a letter to the court with your concerns, it will only take a few minutes of your time.

My first communication to the court was a letter. I then developed an objection to the 363 sale approval and mailed it; believe that was one of the twenty objections the judge received. I also wrote a motion, and mailed it to the court. None have been published publicly thus far.

I shared my letter, objection and motion with the different committee legal representatives, excluding the dip lenders. I received an email from the equity committee in response, they basically blew me off.

I also received an email from the creditor’s committee. He asked for my phone number and he called me. We had a nice conversation. He told me I made some good points in my objection; and my motion would be better served if my personal attorney were to advise me.

I asked why would the equity committee just blow me off and sent a copy of the “blow off” email to him. I had about twenty questions but he didn’t offer any hope if the court approves the 363 sale. We spent some time discussing reorganization, but the debtor needs to show they can make a profit to have any plan at all. I think with the increased in revenues we might be getting close, but the debtor looks like they are on a path to liquidation over reorganization. We spoke on this and I told him I am not expecting the debtor to develop a plan. Again no help, in if there is a plan underway he didn’t speak of one. I did speak of my concerns about the 10% management ownership incentive in the Dip Lenders “Holdco Company”. Again no information there! He was very nice but I really didn’t learn anything new. He invited me to email or call him with any questions and concerns. I was happy someone was concerned.

Last week I sent an additional letter and have another ready to be mailed today. I am developing a Strategic Reorganization Plan for the courts consideration and will have it mailed Monday.

An interesting development in the BP case and haven’t seen much about it anywhere. Did see a local headline that brought it to my attention and wanted to share! New and related claims are being consolidated into the ongoing trial as the district court in New Orleans has ordered on May 20th, 2013. This is a big deal for the ATP claim. You can go to the district court web page and read the order.(see link below)

This was a known possibility months ago but it has now been ordered by the court. This trial in New Orleans is scheduled for September 2013. This process should not take years to settle and with the possibility of a settlement before September 2013, as Judge Barbier is close to issuing a ruling on the first phase of the trial and the percentage of liability to be assigned to BP or its partners; whether any of the companies should be found to have committed gross negligence or willful misconduct, which could result in a four-fold increase in Clean Water Act fines.

The $3.1 billion dollar ATP claim could represent $12.4 billion dollars. Do you think this might have something to do with the rush 363 sale by the dip lenders?

I understand some think ATP will never see a dime but I think everyone will be surprised with the award ATP will receive. There will be one at least one claim that will be the “highest paid claim”, ATP or if the credit bid is approved by the court before an award or settlement, the Dip Lenders will receive the highest paid claim. If ATP’s claim grows four-fold that claim could be worth $12.4 billion, do you thank the Dip lenders want the 363 sale approved ASAP.

Blast away at me if you must, but history shows us other parties have been paid, those payments to date are $20 plus billion dollars, history also shows us that claim settlements have also been made. Why would one think ATP’s claim for $3.1 billion wouldn’t be paid and or settled, with companies that have a means to make such payments? One company will be awarded the “highest in damages” and based on information we know today that company should and could be ATP. So blast away, a $3.1 billion payout looks pretty good against a $12.4 billion exposure, and the cases have been consolidated into the ongoing trial, by court order.

The Texas court needs to hear from everyone, flood the court with objections to the 363 sale and the relinquishment and abandonment of the Gomez assets. Tell everyone to write, your mother, your dad, your brothers and sisters, your kids, their kids. Even write a letter for your dog or cat.



If you need a link to the district court in New Orleans for the consolidation order, here it is. May 20th 2013.

http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/OilSpill/OilSpill.htm

[romang]

truste for atp wouldn't be a bad idea to email her

[e-mail]

[56Chevy]

DEBTOR’S MOTION TO SET HEARING DATES ON ITS DEEPWATER SALE (FOR
JUNE 20, 2013) AND GOMEZ REJECTION (FOR JUNE 13, 2013) MOTIONS

Source: kccllc Doc # 1941

http://www.kccllc.net/documents/1236187/1236187130605000000000001.pdf

[romang]

NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT OF SALE HEARING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that the hearing on the Debtor’s Emergency

Motion Pursuant
to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 363 and 365 and Bankruptcy Rules 2002, 6004 and 6006 for Orders
(I)(A) Approving (i) Bidding Procedures; (ii) Bid Protections; (iii) Auction Procedures; and (iv)
Assumption and Assignment Procedures; (B) Approving Notice Procedures for (i) the
Solicitation of Bids; and (ii) an Auction; (C) Scheduling Hearings on Approval of Sale or Sales
of Substantially All of Debtor’s Deepwater Property Assets; and (D) Granting Substantially
Related Relief; and (II)(A) Approving the Sale or Sales of Substantially All of the Debtor’s
Deepwater Property Assets Free and Clear of Claims and Liens and (B) Approving the
Assumption and Assignment of Contracts and Leases (the “Deepwater Sale Motion”) [Dkt. No.
1252], scheduled for June 4, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. has been adjourned.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that the Debtor will reschedule the hearing on the
Deepwater Sale Motion upon consultation with the Court regarding available dates in June 2013.
Dated: Houston, Texas
May 31, 2013 Respectfully submitted,
MAYER BROWN LLP

[seismic]

Tomorrow is free private message …… I will send you a PM ……

[seismic]

She got most of it right in her reporting!

[romang]

By Jacqueline Palank

A bankruptcy judge on Thursday warned ATP Oil & Gas Corp. (ATPAQ) that it's not "preordained" that he'll approve the asset sale the company has long been pinning its hopes on but which has run into complications.

The remarks, from Judge Marvin Isgur of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Houston, came at a status conference on ATP's progress in resolving concerns about its planned sale to its lenders. The lenders, led by Credit Suisse, have offered about $690 million for ATP's deepwater drilling assets, but much of the offer is in the form of debt forgiveness instead of cash. As a result, ATP attorney Charles Kelly, of Mayer Brown LLP, said the company is concerned it won't have enough cash on hand to cover the costs of bankruptcy--what is known as being administratively insolvent--let alone pay creditors. The attorney asked Judge Isgur for suggestions as how to resolve the dilemma but got an answer he probably hadn't bargained on.

"If the estate is going to wind up administratively insolvent as a result of the 363 sale, then maybe the debtor should consider other options," Judge Isgur responded. "It's not preordained to me that it's going to get approved." The judge's comments come less than a week before ATP is scheduled to ask him to approve the sale, a deal that's been delayed as the deal has run into creditor criticism and concerns. Credit Suisse's attorney, Paul Zumbro of Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, said bankruptcy laws don't require buyers to cover the costs of a company's Chapter 11 case. "I don't think it's the law either," Judge Isgur said. "The question is: Is the offer good enough?" The judge then asked Mr. Zumbro if he wrong to raise that question, and Mr. Zumbro said no. "I think we're in a very challenging situation, and there aren't a lot of good options," Mr. Zumbro added. "I'm not sure what the right answer is."

ATP is scheduled to return to court next Tuesday to seek approval of the sale but must let the court know Monday whether it will need to delay that hearing as it continues sale negotiations. Based in Houston, ATP drills for natural gas and oil in such areas as the Gulf of Mexico. The company sought Chapter 11 protection last August.

(Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review covers news about distressed companies and those under bankruptcy protection. Go to http://dbr.dowjones.com) Write to Jacqueline Palank at [e-mail]. Subscribe to WSJ: http://online.wsj.com?mod=djnwires (END) Dow Jones Newswires May 30, 2013 15:33 ET (19:33 GMT) Copyright (c) 2013 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. 053013 19:33 -- GMT Story ID: MAY302013_DJB_02e9 Keywords: BANKRUPTCY-RELATED FILINGS, CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY FILINGS & CASES, CORPORATE ACTIONS, ALL COMPANY NEWS, DIVESTITURES OR ASSET SALES, CORPORATE RESTRUCTURINGS, ENERGY, INDUSTRIAL Symbols: ATPAQ, CFDAY, CSMLLP.XX

[romang]

could you go into more details? thanks I didn't get to hear it

[seismic]

Had a chance to listen to the hearing, did not sound like a done deal for the dip lenders.

[romang]

not reading to much into it but etrade has a bid of 13.75 and ask of 22.50

about last 10 days there where no bids on the bonds just a ask of 13.00

[romang]

hearing today at 1:30 pm (central) status update on sale


I. BANKRUPTCY MATTERS
1. Debtor’s Emergency Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 363 and 365 and
Bankruptcy Rules 2002, 6004 and 6006 for Orders (I)(A) Approving (i) Bidding
Procedures; (ii) Bid Protections; (iii) Auction Procedures; and (iv) Assumption
and Assignment Procedures; (B) Approving Notice Procedures for (i) the
Solicitation of Bids; and (ii) an Auction; (C) Scheduling Hearings on Approval of
Sale or Sales of Substantially All of Debtor’s Deepwater Property Assets; and (D)
Granting Substantially Related Relief; and (II)(A) Approving the Sale or Sales of
Substantially All of the Debtor’s Deepwater Property Assets Free and Clear of
Claims and Liens and (B) Approving the Assumption and Assignment of
Contracts and Leases (the “Deepwater Sale Motion”) [Dkt. No. 1252].


Contested
Status: Status conference
Estimated Time Required: 30 minutes



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.

[romang]

Thanks

[Enterprising Investor]

Most likely covers the period up to filing date.

[romang]

is this only for pre bankruptcy holders?


http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20130528-909443.html?mod=googlenews_wsj</a>;

[romang]

a little bone handed to the 2nd liens to get a yes vote is Plausable. don't you think :) im sure the 2 hedge funds that own dip and 2nd liens wouldn't cry.

the judge himself said he wanted or would like a plan to go with the sale to avoid problems with the 363 sale objections..

I wouldn't even be surprised if they offered 2nd liens, unsecured, preferred and commons a small percentage of the new company and they would be able to keep the nol's.

I know this is far fetched but could happen. as long as the impaired classes voted yes the classes under them could receive a portion. remember wamu the preferred got 75% and commons got 25% because the preferred accepted the plan

have a nice holiday weekend chevy

[56Chevy]

on a plan of liquidation

is there a comfirmation hearing and vote just like a plan or reorganization? with a disclosure statement.

Yes. But each POL (or POR) is different and can't really be compared to another BK...so any class voting privileges on their individual treatment will depend on what the plan itself calls for.

In the Borders Group example the Debtor and the General Unsecured Creditors were the proponents of the plan (they wrote the plan) and under their plan the Priority claim holders and the Secured claim holders would receive 100% recovery...which means both of those classes are 'unimpaired' so they're 'deemed to accept' (or in other words their claim has been satisified which is all they're entitled to and no need to have them vote).

The general unsecured creditors, on the other hand, will not be receiving full recovery under the plan but there will be enough proceeds from the liquidation sale(s) to pay them a partial recovery ..so they are 'impaired' but entitled to vote.

Since the liquidation won't generate enough money make the general unsecured creditors whole that means there won't be any money left over to flow down to equity holders ...which leaves them 'impaired' and therefore 'deemed to reject' (it goes without saying that if they were allowed to vote they would vote no).

A POL has to be presented first but in the ATP situation you have to assume there will be very little left to liquidate since 99% of the assets were sold in a 363 sale (pending approval). But if for example somehow a small amount would flow to 2nd lien holders after the liquidation sale (it no doubt wouldn't be enough to make us whole) but they would be 'impaired' and entitled to vote.

ATP unsecured creditors would be 'impaired' and deemed to reject ...and the same is true for ATP equity holders.

[romang]

Checy and EI

on a plan of liquidation

is there a comfirmation hearing and vote just like a plan or reorganization? with a disclosure statement.


looking at BORDERS GROUP, INC JOINT PLAN OF LIQUIDATION PURSUANT
TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE PROPOSED BY THE DEBTORS
AND THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS

looks like they voted. would this be the case with atp?
dip lenders and claims ahead of them would be the only ones accepting. and 2nd liens, unsecured, equity would reject?


Summary of Classification and Treatment of Classified Claims and Equity Interests
Class Claim Status Voting Rights
1 Priority Non-Tax Claims Unimpaired Deemed to Accept
2 Secured Claims Unimpaired Deemed to Accept
3 General Unsecured Claims Impaired Entitled to Vote
4 Equity Interests Impaired Deemed to Reject
5 Intercompany Claims Impaired Deemed to Reject

http://www.bordersreorganization.com/pdflib/1897(with%201904)_(2)%2010614.pdf