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.
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.
Good afternoon folks, the new court filing is a must read document 3370.
"Pursuant to section 330(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, Diamond McCarthy requests interim allowance and payment of fees in the amount of $360,546.00 and expenses in the amount of $3,204.70, for a total request in the amount of $363,750.70 for its services as general counsel to the Trustee for the period from June 26, 2014 through September 30, 2014 (the “Application Period”)."
Yes, fellow equity holders 3 months of work grosses Diamond $363,750.70, who says the estate doesn’t have the money to pay the trustee’s legal “Teams”, yes more than one.
Check out Section F, 44, “While the Trustee is relatively certain that there will ultimately be sufficient estate assets to satisfy all the allowed administrative claims in full, that result cannot be obtained until the remainder of the Debtor’s assets are liquidated and claims are adjudicated or resolved.”
Another interesting element of Diamonds billing:
“Applicant coordinated with the Trustee and the Trustee’s special counsel in an effort to expedite resolution of litigation cases including the litigation styled as 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 (the “BP Litigation”).” These folks don't care if we get a dime, they will give this case away.
Deals, deals and deals and more deals, how is the trustee going to pay all of these administrative expense claims from an insolvent ATP, anyone want to guess?????
Damn $364K for three months of work. Does the court expect us equity holders to pay $300K for a legal team just to have our voice heard?
Maybe just maybe justice is only given to folks that have the means to pay a lawyer $650 dollars and hour, Mr. Kyung Lee’s billing rate. And Diamond was the equity committee’s lawyer, don’t think they had much success representing us, but they were doing it for a piece of what we would get, when we get nothing they get nothing. You always get what you pay for, since we paid nothing, we got nothing.
If you have time read the court document, after reading, maybe just maybe you might have an interest in writing the court. We need your voice to be heard.
You all have a great day.
Slob …… thanks for your post …. As an equity holder, new or old, and just me, you have a vested interest in this case. I would suggest that you take a few minutes and read the thread here regarding letters to the court. If you agree and or disagree with what is being discussed voice your opinion.
Just me again, $3 plus billion is at stake, your letter agreeing and or disagreeing is welcome dialog. If you live in the Houston area and or have a means to attend the status conference, please attend in person.
Palico, thanks for your post, you asked about court documents 3283 and 3284. The below is what these filings are about.
3283 Adversary case 14-03287. Nature of Suit: (91 (Declaratory judgment)),(12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)), (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) Complaint by Rodney Tow against Sankaty ATP, LLC, Sankaty Credit Opportunities IV, L.P., Sankaty Managed Account (UCAL), L.P.. Fee Amount $350 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Conveyance # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Purchase and Sale Agreement # 3 Adversary Civil Cover Sheet) (Dortch, Timothy) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
3284 Adversary case 14-03286. Nature of Suit: (91 (Declaratory judgment)),(12 (Recovery of money/property - 547 preference)), (13 (Recovery of money/property - 548 fraudulent transfer)) Complaint by Rodney Tow against HBK Main Street Investments, L.P.. Fee Amount $350 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1 - Conveyance # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2 - Purchase and Sale Agreement) (Dortch, Timothy) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
Another document that is not displayed:
3269 Adversary case 14-03280. Nature of Suit: (91 (Declaratory judgment)),(02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy))) Complaint by Rodney Tow against Water Quality Insurance Syndicate. Fee Amount $350 (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Proceeding Cover Sheet) (Dortch, Timothy) (Entered: 08/26/2014)
But my favorite that is not displayed is:
3264 Adversary case 14-03275. Nature of Suit: (02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to bankruptcy))) Complaint by Rodney Tow against T Paul Bulmahn, LELAND TATE, ALBERT L REESE JR, GEORGE R MORRIS, KEITH R GODWIN, PAULINE VAN DER SMAN-ARCHER, ISABEL PLUME, ROBERT M SHIVERS III, G ROSS FRAZER, JOHN TSCHIRHART, BURT A ADAMS, ARTHUR H DILLY, BRENT M LONGNECKER, ROBERT J KAROW, GERARD J SWONKE, CHRIS A BRISACK, GEORGE R EDWARDS, WALTER WENDLANDT. Fee Amount $350 (Attachments: # 1 Adversary Proceedings Cover Sheet) (Dortch, Timothy) (Entered: 08/15/2014)
I have a MAJOR problem with the trustee filing this document, I will be filing an objection!!!
Hope all have a great week.
Good afternoon, again thanks for the letters to the court and thanks to Roman for taking on the role as Moderator here. We do need more letters!
A status conference is used in a number of different situations. You will find with our notice the court will address the objections, motions and letters listed. I am printing all of the court documents listed and developing a series of questions that I would like to ask regarding each document. I am also developing a list of additional questions and concerns that I would like the court to discuss and will presenting them in a letter to the court. These are basic questions concerning a few of the assets that we still own and accounting questions as we have stopped seeing the monthly operating reports. I will share my list of questions here early next week.
Just me, but I think we will be given an opportunity to argue and discuss those motions, objections and letters we sent to the court. I think the judge will try to be as helpful as he can, but my guess, the outcome will be “all pending motions and objections pertaining to the subject matter will be denied”, anyway that is what I am anticipating. Hopefully I will be surprised.
The important thing here is that we “play nicely”, being respectful to the court, and hopefully the court will help us understand how they are protecting our interest as equity holders, owners of the company.
What makes this case different is the $3 plus billion dollar litigation; it will be interesting to hear what the court might think about the “value” of this litigation.
Everyone have a great weekend, go LSU (the Saints are off this week). Hope your teams also win.
Thanks to equity holders for stepping up, we need more letters and hopefully an accounting will show at least 10% of the equity interest.
We just saw the order to hire Al Reese, sorry to say that employment ran through August 16, see exhibit “A” of the motion.
With the motion now signed “after the fact”, Mr. Reese can now get paid. Who says a trustee needs the courts permission to hire folks.
The best part about this on August 18, 2014, two days after Mr. Reese’s agreement “term”, expires the trustee of the estate filed a suit against the company’s senior management, who the trustee claims failed to properly plan, budget or take the appropriate proactive action to lessen the company's damages caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and negligence. Is our trustee now working for BP????
Of course there were no claims of breach of fiduciary duty and negligence when $3 plus billion dollars of assets were lost, given away, claimed by the Dip. Don’t you just love how the court could conclude “Sound Business Judgment” by our senior management in the Chapter 11 process and on August 18th the trustee files a suit against them!
Speaking of the DIP, my guess and again history will tell us, I think the DIP has suggested that our trustee travel this path to file suit against our senior management. Sort of don’t look at me, look at these guys. Maybe just maybe the DIP is also working for BP????
The trustee needs to investigate everyone who received any of ATP’s valuable assets. Of course that won't happen.
Been busy researching the Innovator, do you know how much it cost to have the Innovator decommissioned and moved? Guess who paid that expense? Deal, deals and side deals!!!!
I would like to suggest a deal, how about a deal to make ATP whole again.
Those that have an interest see the link below.
http://www.law360.com/articles/568426/ch-7-trustee-sues-atp-oil-execs-over-reckless-spending
Franklin 2013 thanks for your post we need your letter to the court.
Rampant1 ..... thanks for your post ..... hope to see you at the hearing.
palico ..... thanks for your post, I did not see them either.
In the past I have seen court documents that haven’t followed a numerical order, then a few days the missing numbers show up.
My guess they were sitting on someone desk , waiting to be logged into the system.
I think Roman had one that did not show up in ordered.
Hopefully they will show up as letters to the court.
The hearing is on October 29th, 1:30 PM CST.
Hope to see you there!!!!!
Thanks ALF-11, you made my evening last night.
Yesterday’s “News” regarding the October 29th Equity Holders Status Conference I think would be good news. My plan is to attend the hearing.
Those equity holders that can make an appearance in court, I would hope you would also plan to attend. It would be nice to see a couple hundred equity holders attending the meeting. Let’s fill up the courtroom.
With this Status Conference there should be an opportunity to get our issues, concerns and questions addressed. I would hope that we would have at least 10% of the equity "interest" attending and or phone in. That would be roughly 5.3 million shares represented. With that our articles of incorporation state those holders can call for a special meeting our security holders. We may not get it, but we need to try and get representation on the board until this case is settled.
Hopefully by October 29th we will have more letters from equity holders sent to the court, please if you haven’t written the court do so now. I will also be sending the court a letter thanking the court for scheduling this status conference.
It appears we will have a voice on October 29th. Lets use this opportunity.
Just to start an accounting, my ATP holdings are as follows:
Bonds, 00208JAE8, 206 Bonds
ATPAQ, Common, 152,100 Shares
ATPGQ, Preferred, 20,012 Shares
You all have a great weekend, go LSU and the Saints.
rs888 thanks for your post. Early on I was convinced bond holders would be paid something. I thought there might be an outside chance equity holders “preferred holders” might recover something, but didn’t see common holders getting a dime. And if the BP suit was won maybe just maybe the commons would get paid. No one in this case was talking about the BP claim, how could anyone discard the cause of the BK filing, BP? And now the only way prepetition creditors will get paid is with monies from this claim. $3 plus billion dollars of assets gone to post-petition creditors, and we think BP is a villain.
Early I thought we had equity holders and the bond folks who had sizable investments; they surely would not allow the DIP to take everything.
The power in the bond holders all liquidated, hell these folks just showed the loss, as it wasn’t their money but the money of their investors. Why would they care?
Then the power in the equity holders fell apart, court document (1), you have one of the large equity holders; they declared bankruptcy and their investors all lost, no help, and the others listed all liquidated. They just took the loss and moved on.
Then we have the Executives; T Paul was a major holder surely he would not let his value disappear, all of these executives had millions of dollars at stake and those that remained allowed the DIP to take it all.
Mr. Reese one of the key players in the Chapter 11 process, was quoted in an earlier interview, before the BK filing.
What is the most important thing you’ve learned in your position?
“Always, always, always have a Plan B! Expect the best, but plan for the worse. There are so many things in the world today that can impact a business plan that have absolutely nothing to do with the business model.”
“Isolated events can have major impacts and disruptions. Always have another avenue or approach to a situation.”
So now I would ask Mr. Reese, what happened to plan B.? And of course we all know what happened to plan B, C, D and E. The DIP wouldn’t allow these plans to go forward, the response from the DIP, pay us off and do whatever you want.
I was very naive regarding Chapter 11 reorganization, bankruptcy is something most folks don’t have to deal with in one’s life. Chapter 11 today is not reorganization; it is now an “art form” for DIP lenders to take control of a company, force the liquidation early before the dust has settled on who is really owed what. Claim the valuable assets for less than the DIP funding and take everything the court will allow you to take.
The most disgusting part about this process has been those that had solid legal objections to the 363 sale withdrew their objection after some deal was made to get them paid something.
The trustee and the CRO have been doing this type of work for some time; I would guess they are just as good as any that might be appointed. Folks that might do a better job would want more money than these folk’s; basically you get what you pay for.
I stand corrected; the court has not as yet signed the motion to hire Mr. Reese and Integrity Growth Group LLC, his company; court document 3342. In my excitement of seeing document 3344, I thought that to be the signed motion. Mr. Reese has not been official hired to provide services.
Our trustee filed his motion on 9/8 2014 seeking permission to hire Mr. Reese., court document 3307. A copy of the agreement between the parties was attached in Exhibit A.
To make my point regarding folks traveling in the grey area, Section 4 of the agreement describes the term, July 8th 2014 through August 16, 2014. Yes Sir, asking for permission after the fact.
Let’s see if the court will sign the motion to pay Mr. Reese. Just me but I would think he, Mr. Reese, might need the money.
In speaking of Mr. Reese, another interesting court document you might want to look at is court document #518 Equity Security Holders. Mr. Reese’s holding are reported there along with ACR holdings. (Mr. Reese’s foundation) Looking at public records for ACR it appears 37,000 shares were sold on 11/1/2013, that loss was reported at $926K. So today how many folks here own more shares than Mr. Reese.
I’m glad to see Herzog Fox and Neeman retained for the Israel assets they have been working this for ATP. We still may lose these assets in the Israel courts. Diamond McCarty just might want to see some pay back as they were the equity holders legal team and was paid nothing, just me, but you get what you pay for, as my calls and emails to Diamond were not returned. Cooper and Scully should do a good job, but it just doesn’t look good to hire your daughters firm, and then have her take an active role. Who would want that exposure?
History will tell us if these folks did a good job, or if they step over the line, regardless of who is doing the work.
I personally know of firms that would have no interest in does this work, why, they don’t want to discount their chargeable rates. Again you get what you pay for.
Just me, but I really don’t give us much hope, we have absolutely no power, we have no legal team and nobody really cares about the equity holders, we just have a court appointed CRO. I am doing what I think I “personally” need to do and it warms my heart when I see others writing the court.
For me I will be here to the end.
Good evening ...... now having read Rampant1 post, please make your voice heard with the court.
Rampant1 thanks for your post as I have revisited this post once again. I think everyone should read what Rampant1 has written.
Thank you for this post!
RS888 thanks for your post. I need just a little time to respond but would be happy to comment on what you have posted.
Good afternoon ……. Thanks to those that are sending in your letters. Most equity holders might think this to be a waste of time, I would like those that have sent a letter and have “gone on the record” to know you are providing documentation that, if necessary, will be used in an argument that would be made to the Fifth District Court in New Orleans regarding any negotiated settlement that might be presented to that court. Thank you very much, to really get the attention of Fifth District Court there needs to be at least 51% of the equity holders voicing their concerns first with this BK court in Houston. I do believe this will have some bearing on the District Court accepting a negotiated settlement.
And why would this be important!
Those that have followed this case and have seen some of my posts, know a major theme I present time after time is the due process rights of equity holders seem to be denied in this Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 case and this is not something new. Bankruptcy courts in general to not care about equity holders, that my friends is a given, 99.99% of the time in a bankruptcy case, equity holders will get nothing. It is accepted; equity holders get nothing.
The difference in this case is the $3 plus billion dollar claim against BP. Some will recall in the 363 sale the dip tried to buy the rights to this BP claim; they also tried to grab the Israeli assets. More importantly court records will show Mr. Latimer statement the “DIP would not allow any monies to be spent for a reorganization effort.” I ask who really controlled this BK case; I believe it was not our board. Just me again, due process denied.
Our board resigns, hell they wanted this nightmare to go away, as BP’s Mr. Hayward said, “he wanted his life back”, our board appears to have wanted their life back. Now we have the court appointed CRO, Mr. Latimer as the only board member!
Even in the bankruptcy process equity holders have rights to due process and generally they are to be protected by the board of directors; as our board has resigned, that protection I believe is gone. Even when the board was still “on board”, I had issues with the board’s business decisions and felt my due process rights were denied, but no real legal position. I am not the only equity holder to contact ATP management and voice my concerns and of course not one response back from those professional managers running our company. My list of those who have been none responsive to my letters and phone calls continues to grow; this too is to be expected as I am a minority holder. Why would these folks treat me any different than other minority equity holders, they wouldn’t. To hear that a minority holder did get a response for our management would be surprising. As a majority, 51%, this makes the difference. We want the Fifth District Court in New Orleans, who would approve any BP settlement, to know the majority of equity holders does or does not approve of what the Bankruptcy court has approved. When need thousands of letters to the BK court in Houston.
So why would you write, how about this, “I am mad as hell and I am going to do something about it”.
As history is easy to understand vs. trying to predicting the future; some will recall the change in control procedures that were ordered by the court. This protected those in the majority from being replaced by those that might purchase shares after the BK filing, taking control on the cheap. Of course this was advertised as protecting the valuable tax credits that would be lost if there might be a change in control. History now shows us this BK case was not about reorganization but liquidation, saving the tax credits, you have to smile or maybe scream. I believe the dip did not want to see a change in control which would have changed everything. The deals and the side deals done here are all a part of that history. It will be interesting to dig into all of the ATP corporate records regarding this case.
Believe me when I say, to many folks travel in the grey area and sometimes they step over the line. The DIP’s attempt to claim the BP litigation and grab the Israeli assets, to me is traveling in the grey area. Why do folks do this, they think they can get away with it. There is absolutely no protection against business fraud even when the court has awarded the assets to those violators.
To me it is important that the corporation is not dissolved and receives some monies from the BP claim, of course after everyone is paid.
It is also important that all of APT’s corporate records be preserved including all of the court documents, records of the deals and side deals. I believe too many folks in this case have traveled in the grey area and history will show when they might have stepped over the line. ATP equity holders may have lost most of the battles in this case, but the war is not lost yet.
Now for some outrage.
For those that might have an interest, check out the links below! Some will recall the Gomez field, some will also recall Anadarko’s objection to the 363 sale and the appeal they started. If Anadarko would have stayed the course and won the appeal, the 363 sale would have stalled and maybe just maybe the sale would not have been approved. A deal was made with Anadarko; the appeal went away along with the objection.
Some will also recall my objection to the Anadarko deal; the court did address my objection and you can find it in the court documents if you order that document from the court. I don’t think you will find anywhere in those documents that say’s Anadarko would end up with the Innovator. Some might say there was no value in the Innovator. Judge for yourself with the links below!
http://www.intermoor.com/information-center-23/press-releases-24/intermoor-successfully-completes-life-of-field-service-operations-in-gomez-field-764
http://icpcs.com/blog/?p=984
Does the Innovator look worthless to you? Deal and deals and more deals all in the name of the best value to the estate. Did any pre-petition creditors get paid??? What do you have to give away, to make the objections go away.
I am asking once again send your letters to the BK court. Looks like Mr. Reese has been hired.
Good afternoon …….. I am sure some have read Judge Barbier’s; Finding of Fact and Conclusion of Law, date 9/9/2014, regarding the BP case.
As we ask ourselves why a majority of equity holders haven’t really spoken up, maybe just maybe some folks don’t give us much hope.
For those that have not read Judge Barbiers findings I would suggest you read them.
http://www.uscourts.gov/courts/laed/9092014RevisedFindingsofFactandConclusionsofLaw.pdf
As I speak of possible punitive damages it is only because of the Ninth Circuit’s and the First Circuit standards would apply to punitive damages under their rules; but not under the rules of the fifth.
Also the Supreme Court could not resolve this issue when it was presented. As the State of Alabama urges the Court (Fifth) to make separate findings, as not all Circuits follow the same rule as the Fifth Circuit, I am hopeful Alabama may ask the Supreme Court to address this issue.
Even the Fifth thinks BP’s conduct warrants the imposition punitive damages under general maritime law, but BP cannot be held liable for such damages under Fifth Circuit precedent. (rule)
Sounds crazy, but in light of Fifth Circuit precedent, the Court (Fifth) concludes that BP is not liable for punitive damages.
Liability for Punitive Damages: Fifth Circuit Rule
Punitive damages may be imposed under general maritime law for reckless, willful, and wanton conduct.
Under the facts of this case, the Court finds that the conduct exhibited by BP’s employees would make an award of punitive damages appropriate.
However, the maritime rule in the Fifth Circuit is that operational recklessness or willful disregard is generally insufficient to visit punitive damages upon the employer. Rather, the conduct must emanate from corporate policy or that a corporate official with policy-making authority participated in, approved of, or subsequently ratified the egregious conduct.
Accordingly, the Court concludes that BP cannot be held liable for punitive damages under general maritime law.
Liability for Punitive Damages: Other Circuits
The State of Alabama urges the Court (Fifth) to make separate findings, as not all Circuits follow the same rule as the Fifth Circuit and some cases may ultimately be resolved under the law of other Circuits.
Those findings are:
The Ninth Circuit’s maritime rule follows the Restatement, which allows punitive damages against the corporate entity when the actor was in a “managerial capacity” and performing within the scope of his employment.267 The Court (Fifth) finds that Vidrine and Hafle were in a “managerial capacity” and their actions arose within the scope of their employment.
The First Circuit appears to also use the managerial agent theory, but with the added requirement that there be “some level of [corporate] culpability for the misconduct.” The Court (Fifth) finds that punitive liability would attach to BPXP under this standard as well.
As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court could not resolve this issue when it was presented in Baker, 554 U.S. at 484. 267 Protectus Alpha Nav. Co., Ltd. V. N. Pac. Grain Growers, Inc., 767 F.2d 1379, 1386-87 (9th Cir. 1985). CEH, Inc. v. F/V Seafarer, 70 F.3d 694, 705 (1st Cir. 1995).
Although BP’s conduct warrants the imposition punitive damages under general maritime law, BP cannot be held liable for such damages under Fifth Circuit precedent.
To the extent the standards of the First Circuit or Ninth Circuit would apply to a particular claim, the Court (Fifth) finds that BP would be liable for punitive damages under their rules.
Now having shared this, it is even more important that a minimum standard be established by the BK court. With the Fifths ruling BP won’t even talk about punitive damages. My hope is they (BP) won’t even discuss a settlement at this time and our case goes to a jury trial, as this issue of the Fifths rules vs. other courts rules, more than likely will make it to the Supreme Court and should be resolved by the time our case goes to the jury. I think the AG of Alabama will push this issue to the Supreme Court.
Anyway this thing is still not over. We need your letters to the BK court. Do not let the trustee negotiate away billions of dollars.
Lets see how many more letters we get tomorrow!
Let me start by saying I am not suggesting that anyone go out and buy shares in ATP. I own bonds, preferred shares and common stock.
For me it is not about the money! ATP was successful, BP changed all of that. T. Paul and Stephen if you haven’t dumped your holding it is now time for you to come out of the shadows. Sorry to say, I think these folks are more than likely long gone.
As the rest of us equity holders, we do care about the creditors, we are trying to make our voices heard in this disgraceful Chapter 11 BK case. This disgraceful case will be another battle.
Please and I say it again, please, write the court, agree or disagree, your voice will make a difference.We need hundreds if not thousands of letters to the bankruptcy court concerning this mediation and the minimum that would be acceptable. If anyone in this case thinks they are getting screwed, the district court in New Orleans has the final say on any negotiated settlement, Folk’s that is the trump card.
We need thousands of letters to the bankruptcy court, it will only cost you fifteen minutes of your time and “one” stamp. T Paul and Stephen step up; we will remember you! History boys and girls (T. Paul and Stephen), we all love history, write your name in history, send your letters to the court. What a powerful few we are that write.
There is a method to my madness, please and again I say please, write the bankruptcy court. I need thousands of letters and other folks to step up.
Everyone have a great weekend; if you love football follow your favorite college team, hope to see you at the LSU game, win or lose we love our Tigers. The Saints another story, NFL shame on you! It should never be about the money.
Believe or not, our maker will have the final say. But in the mean time, make your voice heard.
We need 11,999 more, folks need to step up!!!!
Please find the Corrected template, Document number 3315 has been corrected.
For those that might have an interest please find the following template, You can make this your own by adding any comment you might want to make.
Clerk of Court
Judge Isgur
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
515 Rusk Avenue
Houston, TX 77002
In re: Chapter 11 Conversion to 7
ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, Case No: 12-36187
Hon. Marvin Isgur
(Your Name , your interest); (Second Lien Holder, Equity Holder and or Pre-petition Creditor) IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRUSTEE’S INTENT TO MEDIATE; ATP Oil & Gas Corporation v. BP Exploration & Production, Case number 2:2013cv01962 FILED in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and in SUPPORT of the MOTION TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM MEDIATION PROTOCOL as described. (court document 3315)
(If you want to make a comment insert your concerns.)
SIGNED YOUR NAME
Your printed name
Your printed address
Date
Mail to: Address Above
Thank you for your post, and thank you for the correction, yes 3315 is the correct document number and not 3325 as we have not seen 3325 as yet.
My only excuse is I have a case of the OLDS.
For those that might have an interest please find the following template, You can make this your own by adding any comment you might want to make.
Clerk of Court
Judge Isgur
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
515 Rusk Avenue
Houston, TX 77002
In re: Chapter 11 Conversion to 7
ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, Case No: 12-36187
Hon. Marvin Isgur
(Your Name , your interest); (Second Lien Holder, Equity Holder and or Pre-petition Creditor) IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRUSTEE’S INTENT TO MEDIATE; ATP Oil & Gas Corporation v. BP Exploration & Production, Case number 2:2013cv01962 FILED in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, and in SUPPORT of the MOTION TO ESTABLISH MINIMUM MEDIATION PROTOCOL as described. (court document 3325)
(If you want to make a comment insert your concerns.)
SIGNED YOUR NAME
Your printed name
Your printed address
Date
Mail to: Address Above
Good evening …… as I think it is important to voice your concerns as equity holders, I would be happy to develop a communication piece that could be sent to the court.
Just remember your voice today is very important, we may not win this battle today but there is a strategy to try and win the war.
Thanks for your post, I would just caution everyone looking to purchase additional and or “new folks" purchasing for the first time ATP securities.
There is a better chance of you losing all of your money than making a dime off these securities.
More than likely my motion will be blown off by the court, without the support of the 12,000 equity holders and ATP’s pre-petition creditors, this motion will go nowhere fast. Those currently holding ATP securities need to make your voice heard; if you understand the risk and are a new purchaser your voice also needs to be heard.
“In 2005, an explosion in a BP refinery in Texas killed 15 workers. In 2006, over 250,000 gallons of oil spilled through corroded sections of the BP pipeline in Alaska across the North Slope, leading to a partial shutdown of the company's Prudhoe Bay field and a costly cleanup. In both instances, it was alleged that cost-cutting measures instituted by BP executives had led to poor maintenance. And now the 2010 spill bodes to be the worst in history. BP claims to look "beyond" petroleum, but do they really???
British Petroleum is an oil giant that is more than familiar with share repurchases. From 2000 to today, they have bought back around 20% of their outstanding shares. Not to shabby considering they had one heck of a terrible oil spill in 2010 and the financial crisis in 2009.Ultimately though, those two events led to the suspension of BP's share repurchasing program in 2009.
For awhile it seemed as though BP was done with buybacks. From 2009 to the beginning of 2013, the share count slowly creeped up. However finally, in 2013, they reinstated their program with $8 billion from the $12.5 billion sale of TNK-BP. Previous to this, asset sales for BP were being used to handle costs associated with the Deepwater Horizon spill but more to strengthen the balance sheet. With this sale of TNK-BP they used 25% of the cash received to pay down debt and 75% to put towards buybacks, both of which were welcomed by shareholders. Also with the sale, they received an 18.5% stake in Rosneft leaving BP with a total stake of just under 20% of the company. In the end, this was a great deal for shareholders, as Rosneft will prove to be a lucrative investment for BP.
Back in October 2013 during the 3Q results, BP said they would be divesting a further $10 billion in assets in 2014 and 2015. The bulk of the proceeds are expected to go to shareholders in the form of buybacks. After this news, it seems like they have reached a new mini era for BP's buybacks, the era of buybacks paid for solely by asset sales. This isn't the first time that BP has used the sale of an asset for buybacks, however, it is the first period of time where they are using solely asset sale money for them, as opposed to using free cash flow as well.
Some will argue that ATP was not a competitor to BP, that is like saying Walmart is not a competitor of your local five and dime store. Driving your competitor out of business by offering a better value is one thing, driving your competitor out of business with the worst oil spill in history is another issue. ATP submitted a claim to BP for over $3 billion dollars during the Chapter 11 process, that claim was rejected by BP. If BP would have done the right thing and paid ATP’s claim this chapter 11 case would have traveled down a different path without losing valuable ATP assets to the DIP lenders. Business decisions, business decisions, business decisions; now in 2014 ATP's claim could be “not less than $6 billion” and with gross negligent awarded 3X that.
Maybe just maybe BP thought it was better to buy back their stock than pay ATP’s claim, what’s the worst that can happen ATP being awarded $19 billion, hell BP has spent $51 billion buying back their stock since 2000.
We need the voices of the 12,000 plus equity holders!!!!!
We need the voices of the 12,000 plus equity holders!!!!
From ATP Articles of Incorporation.
D. LIQUIDATION
For the purposes of Section 2 of Section B of this Article Four and for the purpose of the comparable sections of any Preferred Stock Series Resolution, the merger or consolidation of the corporation into or with any other corporation, or the merger of any other corporation into it, or the sale, lease, or conveyance of all or substantially all the assets, property or business of the corporation, shall not be deemed to be a liquidation, dissolution or winding up of the corporation.
Those that have an interest in the OPA seven cases please find the attached. Yesterday!
http://tampa.legalexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/195/2014/09/Order-re-BP-Affirmative-Defenses.pdf
Good morning ……. Thanks for everyone’s posts. As a motion has been filed with the court for an order to establish minimum mediation protocol, those that agree and or disagree should write the court. You can add yourself as a joinder to the motion, write your own motion and or just simply write the court regarding your support against and or for the motion. It is important that your voice be heard. It would be awesome if the 12,000 plus equity holders were to make their voice heard, against and or for. Just me, but I wouldn’t give this motion much hope. As I do believe no one in this case cares about equity owners.
Another note: If you have an interest in the seven OPA test cases try the link below:
http://hhklawfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Moratorium-Brief.pdf
Some might have thought The Oil Pollution Act currently limits liability and compensation for damages caused by a spill at $75 million dollars. This limit does not apply if the incident was proximately caused by a responsible party’s gross negligence, willful misconduct, or violation of applicable Federal safety, construction, or operation regulation. Even without gross negligence, the limitation on liability does not apply to civil and criminal penalties under federal and state law for claims for damages.
BP has also waived the $75 million limitation. See ORDER (Dec. 23, 2010) [Doc. 925]. But the gross negligence, and willful misconduct will help.
Roman, check the KCCLLC site.
Good morning ……. Hope all had a great weekend. We had a wonderful time with LSU football and grandkids. (Saints dropped another one but it was fun to watch)
With our trustee’s motion for a status conference with BP which was denied, I elected in prepare and send in a motion of my own vs. just writing a letter to the court, that motion was mailed Saturday. My motion asks the court to establish a minimum mediation protocol to protect the estate and all parties that would benefit from such mediation. That protocol would require any negotiated settlement to meet a minimum standard and that standard should benefit all parties involved in this bankruptcy.
The Chapter 11 process has changed dramatically over the years, from a court-supervised reorganization to a ‘secured-creditor driven system that results much more often in liquidation and not re-organization. DIP financing agreements today are not to accommodate all classes of creditors and equity interests, but crafted for the benefit of the lender who’s guaranteed the debt.
I believe this change runs roughshod over numerous sections of the Bankruptcy Code, but now this seems to become the standard. Under the DIP’s rights of approval and supervision, the lender in effect operates the Debtor’s business which I believe violates Chapter 11 Code provisions, but again the courts are letting this happen. I believe there were early objections to the DIP financing that were negotiated away. Like it or not DIP financing agreements give DIP lenders substantial control over the Chapter 11 process. That control resulted in Dip lenders receiving substantially all of the valuable ATP assts. It appears to me congress needs to readdress the intent in Chapter 11 re-organization. But that fight is for another day.
ATP through the Chapter 11 process has lost $3,611,739,553 of assets value. As ATP Chapter 11 filing was caused by Deepwater Horizon Explosion and ATP has lost $3,611,739,553 of assets value, that loss I believe is claimable under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, 1002 (B) (2) (D), “the loss of real property”. The forced liquidation was to produce “revenue” to pay creditors. The BP claim filed prior to the “forced liquidation” of valuable ATP assets was not less than $3,011,534,889. With this “property loss” our claim now might be approaching $6,623,274,442; with gross negligence 3X, the value of our claim might reach $19.869 billion dollars. For this reason I believe an order to establish MINIMUM MEDIATION PROTOCOL TO PROTECT THE ESTATE and all PARTIES THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM SUCH A MEDIATION would be in the best interest of the estate and all stakeholders.
Regardless of what the Bankruptcy Court might approve as a settlement, any final Mediated Settlement in ATP Oil & Gas Corporation v. BP Exploration & Production, Case number 2:2013cv01962 must be approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Which I believe to be good for equity holders and pre-petition creditors that might be left out of any negotiated settlement.
I have had a problem with the bankruptcy court approving the Chapter 7 conversion, that approval came at the hearing on the asset liquidation plan and the approval coming from a phone call made at that hearing to the court appointed CRO. Therefore a verbal request was made by the CRO and accepted by the court that day. Not much notice was given to the parties involved, if that is not violation of the BK code, it should be. This is just one of many examples I have where equity owner’s due process rights were denied.
Let me make it clear, I do not believe the BP litigation to be an asset as some parties are describing it. It is litigation for damages caused by the defendants. ATP was a successful business and the Deepwater Horizon Explosion changed that. Corporate shareholders and other “equity holders” hold panoply of rights under state laws, bylaws, and certificates of incorporation; we too were affected by the results of the explosion. These rights reflect the well-established policy of “corporate democracy” that underlies state business and corporation laws. These rights continue during bankruptcy, irrespective of the degree of insolvency of the company. Fogel v. U.S. Energy Systems, Inc. and “absent of other compelling legal or equitable factors, insolvency alone, irrespective of degree, does not divest the stockholders of their right to exercise the powers of corporate democracy. This my friends is very important as at the time of the chapter 11 filing we had 12,860 equity holders, that number today could be twice that figure as large equity holders have sold their interest in ATP, Twelve thousand plus voices.
Maybe just maybe the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, might have a different prospective on approving any negotiated settlement the bankruptcy court might approve if ATP equity holders and pre-petition creditors might object to that settlement.
Just me, this is not over quite yet, you all have a wonderful week.
The SEC revoked our registration, twenty one days to appeal from 9/5.
Since the court and or the ATP CRO didn’t respond to the SEC, my guess they really are not concerned about the continued trading of ATP securities, which also might create an issue with the stock transfer agent.
You need to be real careful trading in the Grey sheets.
Roman,
Did you this?
http://www.sec.gov/alj/aljdec/2014/id664cff.pdf
Roman ….. Good Evening …. Go eagles (only if they are not playing the Saints) Can’t tell you how much fun we have had with New Orleans based Eagle Fans over the years, giving each other the raspberries during the game, and may the better team win. It has been great fun and we have met some great people.
Your suggestion of writing the court with a draft letter and sending it in volume is a great idea. Letters do serve their purpose, but for me I have prepared a motion that I will be mailing to the court. There is a method to my madness; the motion is to ask the court for an order to establish a minimum mediation protocol to protect the estate and all parties that would benefit from such an mediation.
All must understand that the bankruptcy court in Houston doesn’t have the final say in negotiated settlements in our suit against BP and others; that approval is with the Federal District Court. If any party to this case doesn’t approve of the negotiated settlement developed by the Trustee; approved by the Bankruptcy court, they can voice that disproval with the District Judge in New Orleans before he might approve that settlement. That is why objections and motions denied in our Bankruptcy still might be important when due process rights might be denied, more important might be the sound business judgment objections presented in our case when the trustee is suggesting investigations of ATP management into their business judgment. Anyway this thing is far from over.
Phanton 4 asks “wonder why status conference denied …. Anyone ….. and Phjacajo asks what does that mean.
The trustee is asking the court to; ORDER a representative of each the Trustee and BP Exploration & Production, Inc. with full binding authority are required to attend the status conference or seek relief from this Order.
Just me but the Bankruptcy court doesn’t have the power to do that and Judge Isgur states in his denial “The Court expresses no view on whether a mediation motion may be filed in this Court, or must be filed in the District Court.” Just me but this statement is “what the hell are you thinking Mr. Trustee.
Again just me, Mr. Trustee you want to hire your daughter, you want the court to order BP to show up for a status conference and now you what to hire Mr. Reese at $250 an hour. Surely this trustee is not the only trustee available to be appointed to our case.
Just me again, but he is about one motion away from me asking the court to have him replaced. Which the court will deny; hell I’m nobody.
You all have a great evening what’s left of it and a great day tomorrow.
Today is full of surprises; TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH INTEGRITY GROWTH GROUP LLC OUTSIDE THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS.
He wants to hire Mr. Albert L. Reese, Jr., at $250.00 an hour. Yes sir, let the fox back into the hen house. Maybe he can get Al to file the required SEC documentation, which Al didn't do when he was an officer of the Corporation.
Mr. Tow’s motion for “Status Conference” Denied. Now don’t you just love this twist???
Hope all had a great weekend, the LSU game was fun and then “the Saints”, was crying in my beer but that is football. Still had a good time watching the game!
Just me, but I believe all of the pre-petition creditors will have an interest in this Status Conference and my guess the court room will be full. If the bond folks are not there I will be very disappointed as I also hold bonds. When this conference gets scheduled those that can make the hearing should be present. But you need your letter sent ASAP.
Remember our claim was for not less than $3 billion and some change, we have lost 3 billion in assets through Chapter 11 and the gross negligent damages could be 3X. My quick math would suggest $18 Billion if we were to win in a jury trial. But I could be wrong, it might be more.
From Mr. Tow’s filing:
7. The Trustee intends to seek the employment and retention of Motley Rice by the Chapter 7 estate, so as to further pursue the BP Claims in the BP Litigation. This might mean we will see a different deal for Motley Rice’s services.
The bankruptcy court will be a big player in this settlement, but remember it will not have the final say. With every BP settlement thus far, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana must approve any settlement. Hopefully Trustee Tow and Motley Rice will not only take care of the pre-petition creditors, they will also recover what equity holders have lost and settle for nothing short of making ATP whole again.
Just me, but if the court and trustee have no interest in recovering what equity holders have lost, I will petition the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and respectively request that the court not approve the proposed settlement. I would suggest all equity holders do the same if you are unhappy with the outcome of the negotiations. Pre-petition creditors also have that right to voice their issues that they might have in any proposed settlement with BP and the others. If the trustee negotiates a settlement that just pays post-petition creditors and leaves billions of dollars on the table shame, shame on him.
Judge Barbier just might be a little more receptive to the losses of pre-petition creditors and the total loss by ATP equity holders, the owners of the company. With the forced sale of valuable ATP assets through the chapter 11 process and not one prepetition creditor getting paid, with the Post-petition creditors walking away with over $3 billion of ATP assets, this might leave a very bitter taste in some folk’s mouth if the bankruptcy court settles, only to pay off post-petition creditors.
With an $18 billion dollar carrot, any settlement that doesn’t make ATP whole again, I’m sure Judge Barbier will be hearing from a number of folks.
I still believe no one in this Bankruptcy case cares about equity holder’s, maybe just maybe the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana might care.
I have also been following the seven “test cases” in New Orleans, if you have been following this you might be as hopeful as I might be.
First from BP’s web page;
OPA Test Case Proceedings – On 3 June 2014 the District Court entered an Agreed Upon Scheduling Order (the OPA Scheduling Order) for seven test cases (OPA Test Cases) regarding claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). The OPA Test Cases will address certain OPA 90 liability questions for the District Court focusing on, among other issues, whether plaintiffs’ alleged losses tied to the 2010 federal government moratoria on deep-water drilling “arise from” or are “due to” the Incident. The OPA Scheduling Order provides for fact and expert discovery up to March 2015. At the conclusion of discovery, the parties will have an opportunity to file summary judgment briefs, followed by trial, if necessary, no earlier than the third quarter of 2015. The District Court has not yet set any trial dates for the OPA Test Cases.
Second from Law360, New York (July 08, 2014, 4:25 PM ET) –
A group of drilling and oil companies urged a Louisiana federal judge Monday to reject BP PLC’s attempt to blame the federal government for the companies’ lost profits during a drilling moratorium following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster.
Black Elk Energy LLC, Bisso Marine Co. and other plaintiffs in the seven test cases against BP urged the court not to dismiss their suits against the oil giant, which they claim is liable for damages stemming from the disaster under the Oil Pollution Act.
“To the extent that BP attempts to escape liability by alleging that the damages were caused by the ‘fault’ of the United States Government, neither the OPA nor the general maritime law allows for the quantification of fault against an immune or absent third party,” the plaintiffs said in their motion.
BP is attempting to avoid liability by claiming the federal government was a “superseding” cause of the damages because it ordered the three-month drilling moratorium following the disaster, the drilling companies said.
Under the OPA, the responsible party, in this case BP is responsible for 100 percent of the damages arising from the spill, irrespective of fault. BP can seek contribution from third parties also responsible, but it remains the company liable to the plaintiffs. The only way BP could evade liability is by demonstrating that the event was “caused solely by an act of god, an act of war, or the fault of a third party,” according to the statute.
“Under this statutory framework, BP can avoid liability only by proving that the discharge was caused solely by the unforeseeable ‘fault’ of the United States Government, an immune and unnamed party,” the motion said.
According to the motion, Congress rejected proximate cause, including the superseding cause defense, when crafting OPA in 1990. In addition, the plaintiffs argue that BP caused the spill and the spill caused the moratorium and its economic damages. (Which is cause-in-fact).
The seven plaintiffs in the test cases were left out of BP’s $9.2 billion settlement reached in 2012.
ATP’s claim was also not a part of the $9.2 billion settlement.
Now put yourself on the jury, with what you have read above do you think equity holders might be at risk without representation, representation to be included in any settlement Arbitration?
Oh my god, thanks for your post I am sure Rampant 1 would be a good choose but really don’t know who he or she might be as everyone here as a handle they go by.
Over time I have been able to figure out who most folks are. Believe me it takes a lot of time and resources. But knowing who you might be listening to is very important. For me my name is Doug Meyer and I live in Slidell Louisiana which should be no secret to those that have read my objections in court filings.
Hopefully Rampant 1 might know a District Judge in Texas that might help, it will take a District Judge. (Which is no disrespect to Rampant1),If he or she doesn’t know a judge I will find one. It is really important that we get equity holders elected to the board.
With the ruling in New Orleans our suit goes from $3.1 billion to $9.3 billion, “Oh my god” this is now some serious money. For those that want to sell their common shares I have a buy order in for over 900K shares at .001, if you see that buy order it is mine. Hell it is less than $1K. If you want to dump your holdings I will buy them at .001 per share today, just give me a call. (Please call me)
Having voiced my willingness to buy your shares at $.001 a share, I would nominate Roman AKA Romang to be elected to the board. I know who he is and would trust his judgment in protecting the equity holders. Roman will do the right thing, you have to love someone who is so trusting and I do trust Roman. Thank you Roman for having me second guess my own opinions; wish Chevy 56 was still here.
Having said all of this; which nobody really cares, go LSU and the Saints this weekend. Hope everyone here has a great weekend. It has been a very, very, good week! I have more to share on Sunday after LSU and the Saints WIN.
The best to you,
Doug
Just me, but I believe there to be a big problem with the Chapter 7 conversion ordered by the court. The corporate decision to approve the Chapter 7 conversion was made by only one board member and that member was the CRO appointed by the court.
Just me, I would argue due process of equity holders was denied with only one board member, a non-elected member, making the decision to convert to Chapter 7. The point is not was it the right thing to do, the point is one non-elected board member made that decision on behalf of the equity holders.
If no one complains then you can expect that one non-elected board member to make other decisions you might not agree with.
It may sound ridiculous to elect replacement members but we are taking about billions of dollars at risk.
Roman thanks for your post, I agree with you. The response I’m seeing from folks is not where it needs to be to get the attention of the court.
Rampant1 has asked “if anyone becomes aware of anything I can do in Houston to help, please don’t hesitate to let me know.
What I think we need is a Texas State District Court Judge, who handles civil cases, we need a State Judge to order the Federal Bankruptcy Courts CRO to replace the ATP board of directors as the bylaws of the corporation require, ATP is a Texas Corporation.
Does anyone know one of the 458 District Judges in Texas.
Good afternoon,
I think it is extremely important that everyone read court document 3297 Mr. Alton D. McDonald motion to get paid.
The document states:
The motion is denied. This case has been converted to a liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. Distributions will be made in accordance with the provisions of chapter 7. It appears highly unlikley that there will be any distributions to bondholders.
Signed by Marvin Isgur
This just might turn your stomach.