Judge Barbier’s ruling yesterday had a few of us toasting last night, my wife and I.

For us equity holders of a public company, the SEC notice must be taken seriously. If ATP’s only board member, the court appointed CRO, doesn’t take any action to become compliant, the SEC will revoke the registration of our securities.

Remember, the SEC stated that its letters to ATP were unanswered. It also appears the bond trading was also temporary suspended. Just me, but this non-action by ATP’s CRO indicates “there is no intent to preserve the registration of the public securities”.

I don’t believe the estate is willing to spend any monies to preserve the registration. Although I did send my letter to the SEC informing them of the filing of “Monthly Operating Reports” with the court, including document numbers; adding these are public records, I don’t believe this will help. I did copy the court!

If the CRO, the only board member, and the court decide not to file anything with the SEC, it is only a matter of time before our registration is pulled. Believe me; no one cares about the equity holders. One would think the “one and only” board member should still have the fiduciary responsibility to equity holders.

Just me but over the years I have found people will do just about anything they think they can get away with. How many of us have driven our cars exceeding the speed limit, we know we are breaking the law, but we do it anyway, thinking we might be able to get away with it, just before we get the speeding ticket. Someone was watching, the officer, and he caught us.

And again, just me, ATP and others involved in this chapter 11 case just might have some skeleton’s in the closet they don’t want to be found. Do you think if you went into ATP’s old offices, now occupied by Bennu you just might find some ATP assets that were left behind, asset that Bennu did not purchase? As Bennu just moved in! Do you think you might find some ATP assets others might have, that maybe walked off the property all by themselves? The best way to keep this stuff hidden, just let the company “go away”, them no one will be looking, of course “after the fact”.

That is why everyone who has received any ATP assets in the Chapter 11 cases needs to be investigated. And that is why some might want ATP to simply go away, with “No One” left to dig into the records and files.

With this ruling by Judge Barbier, it should give us a little more hope, but believe me do not let the decision makers give away our BP claim value. We need equity holders on the board.

Good evening ……… did send my letter to the SEC and copied the court. Really don’t think it will help but felt it was sometime I needed to do, don’t want to say I should have done this or that as I am getting older.

The bottom line for me is not getting screwed in the negotiations with BP and the other 10 defendants on ATP’s claim. Have my joinder prepared to attach to ATP’s claim against BP and others if equity holders don’t get representation in the negotiations.

The court must make it clear we have representation and will have a say in any proposed settlement. All others getting paid and equity owners not being made whole is not an option for me, give me a jury trial in New Orleans and the defendants will be very sorry they didn’t do the responsible thing.

As this is very, very, very important I will be represented by a legal counsel with my joinder; which by the way doesn’t come cheap if you want the best of the best to represent you. Hell its only money you can’t take it with you when you go.

Another important issue for us all; never let the court give anyone in this case a free ride from prosecution and monetary compensation for acts of fraud. Fraud is not nice, those that have committed fraud in this disguised Chapter 11 liquidation, shame on you, you need to go to jail or simply pay up as so many in this case received some sort of compensation for their withdrawn objections to the 363 sale.

Having said to much, you all have a great evening and go LSU against Wisconsin.

Good evening, I am old school and throughout my career have had administrative assistants (secretaries) proof and correct everything I have ever written.

What a luxury that has been and I thank you ladies and gentlemen for that effort.

My post tonight has some issues with post and pre-petition creditors, I could detail those corrections but no one really cares, most will get the just of what I am trying to say.

Sorry will try to proof read more in the future.

Good evening ……… We have had some nice posts today. The SEC filings were “it’s about time” lack of filings can get you into trouble. But hell, we don’t even have an elected board of directors, they all resigned. Maybe this might help in the final goal; I have already written my letter to Ms. Peterson voicing my concerns. Attached to my letter will be the monthly operating reports filed with the court, which are public. ATP was eligible for the “piggyback” exception of the Exchange Act rule 15c2-11(f)(3). My guess some folks might want to see ATP dissolved before the BP court case is resolved. I hope that won’t happen. The ATP corporate records should be an interesting read along with emails between the parties. Do need to find a Texas Judge that can help preserve these records or maybe just maybe the SEC can help preserve these records.

Did see Law 360 article wondering how this will screw up the BP case. Haven’t read the complaint filed with the court but did read the article. The article states “While ATP’s projected cash flow was significantly impacted by the oil spill and the “foreseeable government response” which is good for our BP case. And then the article states “Defendants failed to make any of the necessary, obvious and prudent strategic adjustments due the effects of the oil spill on ATP’s future cash flows and revenues for operations”, which could be bad for our case if we had minor league representation which we don't. A major league lawyer should make mincemeat out of that argument. Always looking for Credit Suisse name and it shows up in the NPI’s and ORRI’s “disguised financing” part of the article. And of course they are advertised as the victim. Present yourself as a victim, as the post-petition creditor walks away with all of the assets. The most interesting part of the article is the trustee appears to me to now be working for the post-petition creditors. And I would guess that most have seen the Rigzone article dated 7/23/2014, and was wondering when the “Octabuoy” would pop up; well it popped up in this Law 360 article. And of course the article states Mr. Tow claims breach of fiduciary duty and negligence by ATP executives, and as I sit here smiling these are the same executives the court found, made “sound business judgment” in the disguised Chapter 11 liquidation our friends at Credit Suisse forced.

I believe it is important in any due process that those affected have a voice. That voice might not be as polished as other voices but it is a voice. Those that have an interest, you might want to look at court document 3260; this limited objection might be something folks might care about.

I have a problem with giving folks a “free pass” from investigation; others might have that same concern. Presenting objections and reserving your rights regarding the objection puts you in the record. By “not” objecting and reserving your rights, puts you in agreement with no possible recourse in the future. Your objections maybe dismissed but reserving that objection should have value if needed in the future.

For me it is concerning that those that don’t have the financial resources to hire professionals to represent them seem to lose their voice in due process. Look at the professional fees paid out in this case thus far. Most of us don’t have the resources to pay these types of fees just to make our voice heard. Of course anyone can hire representation and some will argue you can find someone to help you and you are a fool to do this yourself. Maybe just maybe that advice comes from those that will get paid to represent you as I was told “you need to hire an attorney”.

For me the professionals in this case are all major leaguers, everyone wants the best of the best to represent them. And of course these professionals will represent one side in a case then without blinking represent the other side in another case. It is never about doing the right thing as some in this case had very strong “legal” objections to the 363 sale and even appealed the ruling. Then later the objection went away along with the appeal; why? …. not because they thought they were wrong but some side deal was made where the appealing party received something of value to them. Some of these strong legal objections had merit, but they went away in “deals”.

To fire myself up I go to the Bennu Oil and Gas web page; www.bennuoil.com, and there sits the ATP Titan now the property of Bennu Oil and Gas. Court document 3264, my limited objection, speaks of the Titan. Look at the Titan, this is a state of the art production facility which today would cost you over a billion dollars to reproduce. I found it odd that NO one really wanted to bid on this asset, does the Titan look worthless to anyone here? In January 2014 the 5th circuit ruled that M/V Titan was not a vessel and not subject to Maritime Liens, what makes this interesting is Judge Vance relied on its unpublished opinion in a similar Case; Mendez v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.

Yes sir, an unpublished opinion. Maybe just maybe the maritime liens against the Titan keep bidders away, and maybe just maybe bidders were not aware of this unpublished opinion. The patented ATP technology that Dr. Robert M. Shivers developed and was incorporated into the Titan, made the production facility award winning and state of the art. As a matter of fact all of ATP’s patented technology is now the property of Bennu, I think Bennu speaks very highly of that technology today.

Look at the picture again, you are looking at a Rolls Royce of production facilities, spend a few minutes and look at every element that Bennu has made public within their web page, all of the value Bennu describes in the ATP assets they now own, look at the reserves that are described, look at the production numbers described, look at everything and remember not one post-petition creditor was paid a dime. ATP filed Chapter 11 reorganization to protect itself from prepetition creditors and not one was paid. $ 3 billion dollars of assets gone, still post-petition creditors are owed over $200 million dollars. Strong legal objections had merit and disappear in the deals and side deals. Major league representation gets paid major league fees and there is a good reason, they win and again it doesn’t matter what side they might be on. I believe sound business judgment would require Credit Suisse to know the facts regarding the NPI’s and ORRI’s deals before they agreed to the DIP financing, they now think these agreements were loans.

Does any equity owner here think that they have received their due process rights? Due process when someone is trying to take away your property. How many equity owners made objections and reserved their rights to any objection? And now, giving the parties who received the ATP assets a fee pass from investigation does this seem right to you? If the estate is going to hire parties to investigate, those parties need to look at everything.

If you have an objection about who is and who is not getting investigated state your own objection or again, be added as a joinder.

On another note, I do have a copy of the ATP Articles of Incorporation and By-laws and would like to hear from those equity holders that might see the same thing I see in these documents. This thing is not over yet.

Good afternoon …….. Hope all is going well for everyone. We have been out of the loop for the last week spending time with family up in the twin cities.

Those that have an interest read Eddy 2 post 2238; that summarized the current state of affairs.

Now read court filing 3264 with special interest to; “Cooper & Scully, P.C. shall not (i) pursue any claims and/or causes of action which were acquired by Bennu Oil & Gas, LLC or incur any fees and expenses with respect to such claims and/or causes of action, and (ii) receive any lien (or other type of interest) in the assets acquired by Bennu Oil & Gas, LLC pursuant to the Sale Order, including but not limited to, any claims and/or causes of action and the proceeds thereof.”

Folks that is a huge “Red Flag” to me, that goes into my book of “Let’s look at this “First”, category. Read each word!!!!

But that’s OK, others might have an interest in this investigation, I sure do! To state an objection to the court and then being “blown off” isn’t really a bad thing and maybe I should not have said that here, but again no one reads these posts anyway.

Now for the fun, I think everyone knows how to contact me, so I am now looking for 51% of the “current” common shareholders. I do have a means to identify all current common stockholders and I will be getting the list of these folks. All I will need is 51%; it would be nice to know those that give a damn vs. those that are just crossing their fingers hoping for the best.

Anyway, it is not over quite yet,but don't go out and buy more shares. There is a better chance of you losing you investment than making a dime here.

Amen

Good evening …… again thanks to those that have made their voice heard. Public outcry from equity owners is really lacking here. If equity owners don’t care why should the courts. I think the trustee will be making an impact here with recent filings to investigate fraud including those former ATP officers and directors. My hope is they will investigate the post-petition creditors and all asset sales transactions including deals and side deals to eliminate 363 sale objections; where that deal involved a financial gain by the objecting party.

Did you know it’s not fraud until you get caught! I believe that is what most think today; we see all the pumpers and dumpers out there in the market today, who in their right mind wants to give up their personal integrity for a few thousand dollars to pump or dump this stock. Your integrity is something people can’t take from you; you have to give it up by what you do and or don’t do. You may have seen this headline today; “Bank of America and the Justice Department have reached a tentative $16 billion deal to settle an investigation into the sale of toxic mortgage securities in the run-up to the financial crisis.” This was “according to people briefed on the matter”. At the time Bank of America folks thought they could get away with it as they made billions of dollars on the deals, a lot more than the measly $16 billion fine. Do you think any of those folks cared about personal integrity? My guess nobody will go to jail, that’s what folks care about; getting caught and going to jail. Lawyers don’t care if their clients committed fraud, their jobs is to get them off or make a deal for their clients benefit. No one cares about right or wrong, it’s all about winning; in the case of financial institutions it’s about making millions if not billions of dollars. Nobody cares about the man or woman who lost their life’s saving, read some of the court documents (letters)in this case.

And those that think the Dip lenders haven’t had their issues with the Justice Department, just research Credit Suisse AG and even the Bank of New York Melon Trust, people run these companies and companies don’t commit fraud, people do. How does one post-petition creditor end up being the only creditor getting paid, second lien holders haven’t received one dime and $3 billion of ATP assets are now gone in a disguised asset liquidation called a Chapter 11 reorganization. Our trusted ATP management who the court has stated “did make sound business judgment” in the disguised Chapter 11 process, after all our assets are gone, will be investigated for possible fraudulent activities.

Public outcry from equity holders I would hope will build. As one of our newer poster has said in post 2196 here, “as someone who’s met Al Reese (ATP CFO) and personally heard him refer to acquiring funding via “snatching and grabbing” as he termed it, something you won’t find in any collegiate finance textbook”; thanks for sharing this about Mr. Reese; Rampant1.

Sound business judgment, snatching and grabbing. Snatch and grab as much money as you can today then give away the company tomorrow in a disquised Chapter 11 filing. When it smells like dead fish most of the time it is dead fish, what does ATP's Chapter 11 reorganization smell like to you? Goodnight and good luck in your investments.

Thanks for everyone's effort; did expect minimum response from the masses. Folks don’t care, therefore won’t sign up to make their voice heard. Thanks to those that have the guts to be heard, do believe this is not over.

Coming attractions; The trustee believes fraudulent transfers of ATP assets did occur, willing to pay 40% of the recovery to legal team finding such fraud, so those that think fraud can’t happen within a Chapter 11 filing guess again. I will be filing another limited objection to the hiring of that firm, statement of work is to limited, needs to be expanded to include the entire Chapter 11 process, including post-petition creditors.

Seriously, those new investors in ATP common shares; you too can make your voice heard. When someone sells their ownership interest to you, congratulations, as you are a new owner and as an owner you have ownership rights just like the rest of us, regardless of how long you have owned your shares. Welcome and make your voice heard.

Those that know, thank you for your support!!

Roman I hope you are right.

Good evening …….. Today’s court document 3214. Mr. McDonald is not an attorney, just an investor who has lost some of his retirement funds, trying to get the court to help him. Our trustee filed this objection today.

“The bonds represent pre-petition claims against the estate. Alton McDonald fails to reference any legal basis that would permit the relief he requests in the Motion.”

Fails to reference any legal basis!!!!!!!! These folks don’t care about any pre-petition creditors and or equity holders. They want you to hire a $500 an hour attorney, of course the attorney would tell Mr. McDonald he was a day late and a dollar short, sorry can’t help you. And then add; you should have called me one year ago when I could have done something and billed you $250K.

Our trustee goes on to say;

“Based on the Trustee’s analysis of the assets of the estate to date, the Trustee believes it is unlikely that the assets of the estate will be sufficient to pay off the Superpriority Claim.” Folk’s that is the post-petition creditor the DIP.

"unlikely that the assets of the estate will be sufficient to pay off the Superpriority Claim" I’m sure the trustee has more information regarding the BP claim then we might have, my guess there will be a deal and equity will not get a dime. My point, equity has “No” one looking out for us.

From Court document #3204

‘The Trustee proposes to retain Cooper & Scully P.C. as special counsel to assist in five parts: (1) litigation management; (2) investigation of claims; (3) preferred stock dividend fraudulent transfer litigations and bonus payments to executives; (4) NPI ORRI litigation and preference recovery actions related to NPI/ORRI arrangements/contracts; and (5) indemnity, breach of contract, and duty to defend claims against contractors and various insurance carriers.”

Just me, the scope of work here is to narrow it needs to included investigation of the Chapter 11 process including the misrepresented Chapter 11 filing. Like Item 3, fraudulent transfer; How can one post-petition creditor, the DIP lender be allowed to walk away with all of the valuable assets through Chapter 11, the case should have been converted to Chapter 7 before that was allowed to happen. This investigation should include all of the “deals and side deals done and approved”, including all information deemed confidential, looking for any fraudulent transfer. We have seen numerous objections disappear in the Chapter 11 case with these “deals and side deals”.

“The compensation for each part varies based on the nature of the work and type of litigation. A
detailed explanation of each of the five (5) proposed areas and an explanation of compensation
for each part is attached as Exhibit "C" and is herein incorporated in the Application to Employ.”

Look at the rates charged for this work, I would guess the average equity holder doesn’t have the financial resources to conduct such an investigation. Court document 3160 the latest MOR Bankruptcy and Professional fees totaling thus far $41,752,516, yes $41.7 million dollars spent so far! It was a good thing ATP had over $3 billion dollars of asset value, how could the estate afford to pay $41.7 million in fees if that asset base was only $50 million. How does a $50 million dollar asset base company go through a Chapter 11 than a Chapter 7 conversion and afford $41.7 million in fees. Maybe just maybe Cooper and Scully should include in their scope the investigation of fees charged by professionals here. A $50 million dollar asset base company would have just as many creditors as ATP, the liability numbers might be missing some zeroes at the end, but common sense would suggest there would be just as much work in a $50 million case as there would be in ATP’s case. I have this vision of this huge “feeding trough” with all the professionals lined up just eating everything in sight.

“Cooper & Scully P.C. has performed a conflict inquiry predicated upon a list comprised of the Trustee, the Debtor, known creditors, and other known parties-in-interest. Lauren Tow is the daughter of the Trustee. Mr. Tow's daughter, Lauren Tow, is working as an attorney with Cooper & Scully, P.C.”

Does anyone have a problem with this, the trustee’s daughter works for Cooper & Scully. Our trustee has used the folks before in his role as trustee, do you think he used them before his daughter started working there or after; maybe both. I am sure his daughter is a very competent attorney and a very nice person, but would think in the role as a “trustee” is this appropriate. Just me, but I would have tell my daughter, I’m sorry honey but I can’t hire you or your firm, it just doesn’t look right.

So now my confidence in our trustee has diminished further and I still believe he does not care about protecting our interest. I really hope I am wrong here, but the history of this case will tell the story when everything here is finally over. I will be looking to see how many will be objecting to the hiring of Cooper & Scully.

If you have an interest in joining my Limited Objection Court document 3193 please find the template below.

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

In re: § Chapter 11

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

Debtor. § Hon. Marvin Isgur


(Your Name)____________ Joinder in LIMITED OBJECTION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF DOUGLAS A. MEYER, SECOND LIEN and EQUITY HOLDER OF SECURITIES IN ATP OIL AND GAS IN CONNECTION WITH DEBTOR’S MOTION TO CONVERT CASE FROM CHAPTER 11 TO CHAPTER 7 AND THE COURT’S CONVERSION ORDER.
[Relates to Dkt. No. 3193]

COMES NOW, Your Name_______________________, an EQUITY HOLDER OF SECURITIES IN ATP OIL AND GAS and joins the limited objection filed by DOUGLAS A. MEYER, SECOND LIEN and EQUITY HOLDER OF SECURITIES IN ATP OIL AND GAS, docket No. 3193,

JOINDER;
Your name________________ hereby joins in and adopts the arguments and objections raised in the Limited Objection, docket No. 3193.

RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Your name______________reserves my rights to raise all other and additional objections and/or responses to the Motion thereon and to the extent applicable to its rights, to adopt such other and additional objections as may be raised by any other party.

Dated: July ___, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

Signed ______________

Name: Your Name

Address: Your address

Mail to:
Judge Isgur
Clerk of Court
United States Bankruptcy Court
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
515 Rusk Avenue
Houston, TX 77002

Good morning ……… My hope is someone here can help me understand who is protecting the equity holders and how these folks are protecting our interest. I still think without the equity owner’s interest being protected in this Chapter 7 case, we do not have much hope in receiving a dime from the BP claim.

Here is my take on it. The chances of us getting a dime is very, very slim even with this huge carrot of a $6 billion award.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00379, ATP v. BOEM, Pending in Federal Claims Court, is a case wherein ATP sued the federal government for placing a moratorium on the drilling. This is the same case that I made reference to that was being negotiated away. I think the BOEM claim was for $85 million. APT was going to negotiated this case away and clear Case No. 2:13-cv-262, where the United States of America v. ATP, Pending in the Eastern District of Louisiana; this was being “sold” to the court, as saving the estate $7 million dollars or so. Now that deal is dead, which I think is good. The value maybe $85 million which will not really help Equity holders.

Now here is the twist.

Because ATP sued the Federal government, the case above, on the grounds that the moratorium was illegal which a court has said it was, BP and the other defendants say the economic losses cause by the moratorium was not their fault. If it was not their fault why would we expect BP to pay a dime? I maintain cause and effect which I have said before. The cause; the explosion, the effect of the explosion, the moratorium and the shutdown of the GOM, legal or illegal. BP and the others are responsible! The courts and jury may feel different.

Our case against BP and others is 2:2013cv01962, filed April 20, 2013 in the Louisiana District Court, Judge Barbier. There is a jury demand and the defendants are:

Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., Transocean Holdings, LLC, Sperry Drilling Services, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., BP P.L.C., BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, Transocean, Ltd. and Triton Asset Leasing GMBH.

Judge Barbier has allowed six cases to move forward of the private claimants, these six have filed similar claims to what ATP has filed. These are basically economic losses caused by the moratorium, “test cases” and I don’t believe APT’s case is one of the six. Which means our case will not go forward until after the third phase of the trial is completed. The third and final phase of the trial will start January 20th, 2015. (This case is important as the outcome will determine gross negligent by the parties).

If these six cases are lost by the plaintiffs; which would mean BP and others win, the chance of ATP seeing any massive judgment would be slim to none. If these six cases are won by the plaintiffs; which would mean BP and others lose ….. I would think we should win our case. If gross negligent is found in the New Orleans trial; that could result in 3 times any jury award! With the six cases won by the plaintiffs and punitive damages awarded, BP and the others might try to settle before a jury trial. Anything short of a jury award puts us equity holders at risk. Why, if there is a settlement without equity owner’s participation we may still lose and not receive a dime.

Believe me when I say we need someone looking out for our interest. As I also own bonds, there is someone looking out for that interest and these folks do not care about equity owners. The creditors also have folks looking after them and they don’t care about the equity holders. So now in settlement talks the dip wants their $200 plus million, bonds what their $1.5 billion and creditors wants their $500 million, the lawyers handling our case will get 1/3 and the equity holders have no one speaking for them, they won’t get a dime. Why, these folks will say this settlement gets us paid take the settlement; that is a lot of money. Even BP and the other defendants win, they saved themselves billions of dollars. Look at the list of defendants, who on that list doesn’t have very deep pockets. A jury trial could cost the defendants as much as $18 billion dollars, what a bargain and again the equity holders lose, why because no one is protecting our collective interest as we are the villains in this case, we are the owners of the bankrupt company those guys don’t deserve a dime.

At this point in time, I feel there is no one fighting for our protection. Common sense; if no one is fighting for this, you would have to think there would be no value for equity holders. So most must think we will see nothing from the BP claim. In most Chapter 7 bankruptcy cases there is no value left for the equity holders and or we are the villains who weren’t minding the store; letting professional managers run amuck, making millions for themselves and driving the company into bankruptcy.

The court does not care about the equity holders, us villains and neither does the Trustee. We have no fiducially connection to the only board member, the CRO, we are the villains, why would we expect any fiducially relationship. No one is going to work for us for free; hell no one has even offered to work for a percentage. Why do you think no one cares?

Just me, to make a difference we need to be heard, one way is to write the court and trustee a letter another way is to file your own objection with the court or if you agree with my limited objection you can file a joinder of my objection. To file a joinder is really easy and I can supply you with a template, just fill in your own name.

If we do nothing we will receive nothing.

Good evening ………I wish I felt as confident as some regarding the new trustee and his legal counsel. The debtor, that is us equity holders, counsel of record is still Charles Kelly. The equity committee has no counsel with this Chapter 7 conversion.

All elected board directors have resigned leaving the court appointed CRO the only board member and Mr. Kelly’s client. We know what happened in Chapter 11 with these same folks, what makes anyone think this will not be a continuation of the same old thing?

Today I mailed a limited objection to the Chapter 7 conversion. I am sure my limited objection will create addition laughter and be discarded by the court and the new trustee, but wanted my voice to be heard.

Mr. Kelly, in his comments made at the last hearing, stated they were negotiating with the government GOM regulators; where ATP still retains some financial obligations. They were using ATP’s suit against the US Government for imposing the moratorium on drilling and the shutdown of the GOM for a year as a point of negotiations, ATP agreeing to drop the suit if an agreement could be reached. Mr. Kelly stated they had basically made the deal. I thought Mr. Kelly stated the value to the estate was around $7 million dollars,but I could be mistaken on the value. My point; this is an example of dealing away pending litigation, with no moneys to ATP just a deal to remove financial obligations.

BP maintains economic losses due to the moratorium was not there responsibility, I maintain cause and effect rational, meaning BP caused the moratorium, legal or illegal action by the US Government. If the Horizon had not exploded; no moratorium, legal or illegal! I believe “others” involved in our case don’t see the billions of potential value of the BP litigation. Sorry to say those “others” represent the debtor, equity holders. They are still making the business decisions as they did in Chapter 11, BP knows this and after the trial (hearing) on gross neglect is concluded in New Orleans, I’m sure BP will low ball a settlement for less than one billion dollars. I believe this management group will agree to the settlement and the court will order acceptance.

I was involved in a business fraud case with a company who had very deep pockets. In arbitration, we felt we could accept a settlement of one million dollars, the defendant offered $100K. I refused the offer and we walked away and went to court. The jury awarded us $32 million dollars; during the appeal we accepted a settlement of $23 million dollars payable in 3 business days. My point; if this were the BP case ATP management would accept the $100K, leaving $29.9 million dollars on the table. Believe me when I say, nobody connected to this case cares if “equity holders” receive a dime. Our attorney, Mr. Kelly does not care, our Judge does not care, our CRO does not care and none of the creditors care. I am certain the new trustee does not care nor their newly appointed legal counsel.

I was asked what can we do; sign a petition or something. I am not sure we as equity holders can do anything when nobody cares. For me I will keep objecting and voicing my concerns until the end, believe me one voice will make no difference, but it is something I feel I have to do.

I have authored a letter to my Louisiana Congressional delegation, not to complain about what has happened to the ATP assets in our Chapter 11 process, but to voice my concerns about how the Chapter 11 process was being used as total liquidation to the benefit of only one post-petition creditor. I do not believe it to be congressional intent in the Chapter 11 reorganization legislation for the total liquidation of assets when that liquidation benefits only one creditor, especially a post-petition creditor namely a dip lender, unless an approved reorganization plan has been presented and approved by the parties and the court, and that liquidation is a part of the reorganization. I believe Judge Isgur erred in his ruling to allow the total liquidation of ATP assets without a reorganization plan, let alone an approved reorganization plan. The choice should have been reorganization plan or Chapter 7 conversion.

I will be asking the Louisiana Congressional delegation their congressional intent with this legislation and if it was the intent of congress to allow this activity to happen in Chapter 11; to change this law to restrict this activity. Chapter 7’s intent is liquidation, Chapter 11 is reorganization. I will point out that $2.6 billion dollars of asset value was lost in this Chapter 11 process, pre-petition creditors and equity holders alike were victimized.

As I am sure equity holders will not benefit one dime from the BP litigation through this Chapter 7 conversion, I am developing a strategy where current Equity Holders might be granted a joinder by the District Court here in New Orleans, to ATP’s litigation against BP. ATP Oil and Gas Corporation has filed the claim, ATP Oil and Gas Corporation is owned by the Equity Holders, the Bankruptcy Court did not file the claim, the creditors did not file the claim. With Equity Holders being abandoned in the Chapter 7 conversion with no “collective voice” in the proceedings, I’m sure a few of the attorneys I know could make the case where abandoned Equity Holders should be allowed the joinder.

Each of us should do what they feel we need to do, I would not advise anyone to purchase common or preferred shares in APT, the chances are better that you will lose your money than make a dime purchasing these shares.

Roman, yes I did listen to the hearing and was prepared to speak if given the opportunity. No your motion was not mentioned, as the debtor made a verbal motion which carries more weight.

Roman if you would not mind, let me share a few of my thoughts regarding ATP; this by no means is suggesting anyone purchase ATP common or preferred shares, there is a greater chance you will lose all of your money than gain a dime from these investments. Having said that, I just purchased 100 thousand common shares to add to my holdings of preferred and bonds, why did I do this; I want a voice as a common holder, an owner of the company, my preferred holding gave me no voice and or vote.

“Louisiana Governor, Bobby Jindal has agreed to pour $1 billion in BP oil spill recovery money into Louisiana's "rainy day" fund and an elderly trust fund that was drained to plug budget gaps.The governor's office announced Friday that Jindal signed the bill that contains the oil spill money plan, along with other short-term maneuvers to keep next year's budget balanced.”

This is a bill that the state legislators have developed and passed, they believe the State will receive this money and their claim against BP is not a “pipe dream”. What makes this legislation “different” is the following;

Louisiana is expected to receive as much as billions of dollars from BP to pay for the state's claims of economic damage caused by the massive 2010 spill. Those dollars are separate from other civil penalties from violations of environmental laws, money that's required to be set aside for coastal restoration and protection projects. The claims are the subject of ongoing federal litigation, and it's unclear when any of the money might be available to the state.

First, this would be monies from the current suit ATP is a party too in New Orleans. My point, if the State of Louisiana believes it will be paid “billions” in Economic damages, why should we not believe that ATP will also be paid. We have to convince the new trustee that ATP should also be paid, which could pay all creditors in full and leave “billions” of dollars for the corporation.

Second, what is the ATP BP claim really worth in economic loss, Court document 1575, “In January 2013, ATP, with the assistance of the Firms, submitted a claim to BP under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 for loss of profits and earning capacity as a result of the Deepwater Horizon Spill in an amount “not less than” $3,011,534,889.00 (the “OPA Claim”).

Through the course of the bankruptcy ATP has “lost” $3.636 billion of asset value. This loss was after the suit filing, add that to the “not less than” $3.011 billion, the economic loss claim would grow to $6.647 billion, with a chance this could be doubled. The chance of any pre-petition creditors getting paid from the remaining ATP assets is slim to none! They have nothing to lose by waiting for the results of the suit. They have to be convinced waiting is their best option.

Third, the DIP has to be neutralized with their remaining $200 million debt. They may demand the balance of the estate for payment. We need to remind the trustee of this rare situation where the ATP’s BP claim could pay all creditors in full, leaving a substantial balance to the corporation and this is important, push for the hiring of Togat Segal, since this is already in the works. Togat Segal also needs to investigate the total Chapter 11 process, payments made to professional, payments made to the DIP and why the Chapter 11 deception was not filed as Chapter 7, when the only plan developed was a plan of liquidation and “not” reorganization. I believe this to be an abuse of our legal system and the laws that congress has passed. As only the DIP have been paid.

Fourth, the equity holders need a voice and a new board of directors needs to be appointed, as the old board have all left the building. If the BP claim is awarded in excess of $6 billion dollars, the board needs to protect the rights of the equity holders, who are the legal owners of the corporation. The valuable tax attributes of the corporation also need to be preserved, which there is a current court order for that preservation. That order needs to be respected. It also needs to be made clear that there is a chance the corporation will benefit substantially from the BP claim and the owner’s rights need to be protected.

And last, to me this is a new ballgame and all of us equity holders need to contact the Chapter 7 Trustee. Do not think for one minute there is a “professional” protecting you ATP ownership rights. All of the professional managers including officers of the corporation are gone, that is a good thing, they should have been fired and the board replaced with the Chapter 11 deception filing. Remember the names of all these folks, the only party benefiting for this Chapter 11 deception were the post-petition DIP lenders.

Our professional management team blamed the Chapter 11 filing on the BP oil spill, than they gave away all of our assets in the liquidation deception to one post-petition lender, without trying to preserve our assets until our claim against BP had been resolved. Yes this would have taken years, but the cause was BP, the effect was a Chapter 11 reorganization filing, the deception was Chapter 7 liquidation and the result was ATP asset value today is less than $3 million dollars and “no” pre-petition creditors were paid one dime, $3.6 billion dollars of assets gone. How does our legal system let this happen? Especially when we see Court document 1575, “In January 2013, ATP, with the assistance of the Firms, submitted a claim to BP under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 for loss of profits and earning capacity as a result of the Deepwater Horizon Spill in an amount “not less than” $3,011,534,889.00 (the “OPA Claim”).

Why not less than? Because the cost of this bankruptcy, including lost profits can be added to the claim. Todays “not less than” should be $6.64 billion. The trustee needs to understand this, we as equity holders need to remind him and the court of this fact.

In closing, court document 0001 shows at the time of filing there were 560 preferred holders and 12,300 common stock holders; how about this screen outside the bankruptcy court in Houston. The 12,860 owners of the ATP standing outside the court with signs, and let us also include all of the pre-petition creditors who didn’t see a dime of the $3.6 billion dollar assets value, all holding signs that say “How can this happen in America, $3.6 billion in assets vaporized by post-petition lenders and “professionals”. “Pre-petition Creditors and Equity holders alike got screwed by our legal system and in the process didn’t even get,” just a little kiss”.

As now the case is in Chapter 7 with a US trustee, I will be asking Louisiana Senators Mary Landrieu and David Vitter along with Representative Steve Scalise how this could possibly happen in the United States, Chapter 11 deception to benefit just one creditor and that creditor was post-petition, $3.6 billion in assets gone!

Roman,
Any thoughts regarding this change?

We now have entered Chapter 7 with todays hearing, new trustee.

Roman,
I have misplaced your email address and I do not have private messaging here. Like to chat with you.

Did listen to the hearing today, and it was continued to next week. The judge did speak of the objections presented, as mine was not taken seriously. The debtor’s attorneys will be speaking with the “other” objecting parties, trying to work some deal out. I will bet you all of my worthless preferred shares; they will not be contacting me.

It was interesting to hear the other objecting parties speak when given the chance. The US Attorney basically said she is ready with a Chapter 7 trustee. She was quite forceful in her comments. As she thinks spending $700K for on this liquidation plan is a waste of the estates money. The judge did suggest, “Someone” present a motion to convert the case to Chapter 7; of course he is looking for case law. The judge did ask if the debtor has a liquidating trustee established, and who that might be. The debtor’s attorney said they were working with the DIP Lenders and were not ready to name the trustee publically. I believe if a liquidation plan is approved the DIP will get all of the remaining assets, including the BP claim, but my guess they want the Israel assets and the ATP shell. They will also argue for the BP claim. A chapter 7 may be more difficult for them to take the remaining assets.

As I have followed this case, I have seen more things that have turn my stomach and the sad thing, most were perfectly legal. Without a $2500 an hour attorney you have no rights and your concerns can be thrown out with yesterday’s trash. Any objection you present to the court is laughed at with attorneys present whispering, who is this idiot? Trying to get information from any “professional committee” is next to impossible let alone getting them to present your objection in court, that will not happen, as I was told hire your own attorney. Letters to the court, useless!

In the last public MOR it was reported that the estate has spent $63,303,808 on Professional fees and there are more fees paid since that reporting. And what has changed since the day ATP filed Chapter 11. We had $3.2 billion dollars of asset’s, we generated almost $500 million in revenue since the filing and today (last MOR) we have $2.5 million in cash and $6.6 million in oil and gas assets.

The only creditor that has been paid is the DIP loan ($694M) or part of the dip loan as we still owe $247 million. We used $164,741,656 of the DIP funding ($694M) on the Clipper Project which the dip claimed in their Credit bid, $3.2 billion dollars in assets vaporized. The second lien holders haven’t seen a nickel nor the balance of the Secured obligation of $1.6 billion, the priority unsecured creditors $10.7 million and the unsecured creditors $107 million, not a nickel. This whole BK case has revolved around paying back the DIP loan and cleaning up the title to properties the Dip claimed in the 363 sale. $63 million in professional fees for this! There was never a plan to reorganize so why would we need DIP funding?????

The dip converts their pre-petition loans, into post-petition funding insuring they will be first in line. They had done their pre-petition due diligence for these loans and would have more financial information concerning ATP than others. So they are willing to give ATP management more money.

They, the DIP, had first-hand knowledge of the ATP asset value as they used these assets as collateral for the pre-petition loans. They also understood the revenue and working interest arrangements with third parties; ATP’s liability associated. As this was confidential, there was limited understanding by others of the liability associated with the assets, but the DIP made the loan.

They forced the 363 sale in liquidating the gulf assets, few others know of what liabilities might come with each property, which in a rushed sale is good for those that knew.

They approved post-petition expenditures, dip funding, for asset development on only a few select assets and refused to allow expenditures on others. They refused to allow any post- petition funding to be used for developing a reorganization plan, which we learned in Mr. Latimer’s court testimony.

They knew they could “Low Ball” their bid for the assets, when most folks didn’t understand what liabilities would be attached. They purchased, credit bid, the majority of the ‘Crown Jewel” ATP assets where post-petition funding was targeted to certain assets they would later claim, and they retained their senior priority for the pre-petition loan amount rolled into the dip funding. The best part of this strategy; they made millions of dollars from fees and interest, which they would not have made if this liquidation plan was presented as it should have, Chapter 7. Simple no reorganization plan, no chapter 11. This will go down in history books as a text book example of how to pilfer billions of dollars of assets through the Chapter 11 process, avoiding Chapter 7.

But the story isn’t quite finished, The DIP wants their remaining $200 plus million, they will try to claim the remaining assets. Goodbye the Israel assets, goodbye the BP claim and goodbye the equity holders; Corporation shell with millions in tax credits, little good with a ownership change, but the public shell will save millions to take a company public.

As a closing note; for those that think ATP will receiving nothing from BP.
BATON ROUGE - Gov. Bobby Jindal has agreed to pour $1 billion in BP oil spill recovery money into Louisiana's "rainy day" fund and an elderly trust fund that was drained to plug budget gaps.
The governor's office announced Friday that Jindal signed the bill that contains the oil spill money plan, along with other short-term maneuvers to keep next year's budget balanced.
Louisiana is expected to receive as much as billions of dollars from BP to pay for the state's claims of “economic damage” caused by the massive 2010 spill. Those dollars are separate from other civil penalties from violations of environmental laws, money that's required to be set aside for coastal restoration and protection projects.
The claims are the subject of ongoing federal litigation, and it's unclear when any of the money might be available to the state.

Yes the State of Louisiana expects to get “billions from BP” in economic damage caused by massive 2010 spill. Why wouldn’t ATP expect to get paid economic damages; at least the State of Louisiana has not gone bankrupt. My guess BP would love to have the DIP Lenders claim this ATP asset and or have them negotiate a settlement.

It will be interesting to see if BP’s objection, court document 3133, “TO AMENDED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER (I) AUTHORIZING COMBINED HEARING ON APPROVAL OF DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF PLAN OF LIQUIDATION”, goes away, in some back room deal. The debtor’s attorneys did say today in the hearing, they will be speaking with some of objecting parties.

Roman,
It has been awhile, still holding my bonds and preferred shares. Tried retirement for about 4 months, worked on some of our real estate holdings, spent some time in Hawaii with the wife, purchased a couple more thoroughbreds to race and played with the grand kids. Got a call from a friend and went back to work. I’m sure you have read the liquidation plan and disclosures. I have developed another objection I will mailing the court on Monday.

Did read a couple of interesting things in the documentation.

Class 5 - Equity Interests. The holders of claims in Class 5 consists of all Equity Interests in
ATP. Holders shall not retain or receive any property under the Plan. All such Equity Interests
will be canceled and extinguished. Because holders of Equity Interests in Class 5 will receive no
distribution under the Plan, Class 5 will be deemed to have voted to reject the Plan. It is not
anticipated that holders of claims in Class 5 will receive any distribution under the Plan.

If the plan is approved as written, common and preferred shareholders will receive nothing, even if ATP wins the BP suit. And our shares will be cancelled. “Holders shall not retain or receive any property under the Plan.”

The Good news is bonds holders are in line to be paid if there is any money.

In reading the disclosures I found out the ATP Israel asset sale fell through. Not sure if the DIP did a back door deal and stole these assets. But know they wanted these properties, my guess the DIP screwed up the deal. No documentation listing the remaining ATP assets that I could find. Have you found anything that would suggest these assets are still retained by ATP, they include the Israeli Petroleum License, ATP East Med Number 1, B.V., ATP East Med Number 2, B.V. and ATP East Med Number 3, B.V.. It has been published that the ATP Israel assets have hundreds of millions of dollars of oil and gas reserves. My guess is ATP still holds these assets, and if we do I think the dip wants them, therefore the liquidation plan. The Debtor states in the disclosure docs “the Debtor is only going forward with a plan process so long as it has the support of the DIP Lenders.” The documents also say “the Debtor’s only significant remaining assets that could fund distributions to creditors consist of pending litigation claims against BP arising from the Deepwater Horizon disaster in 2010 and potential Chapter 5 avoidance actions and D&O claims that have yet to be asserted.

As the equity holders will receive nothing with this plan and have our shares cancelled, I developed the Objection I will be mailing. If you are an equity holder you need to send an objection, the following would be an example.

I object to the treatment of Class 5 Equity holders.
Class 5 - Equity Interests.
(a) Classification. Class 5 includes all Equity Interests.
(b) Treatment. Holders shall not retain or receive any property under the
Plan. All such Equity Interests will be canceled and extinguished.

I would ask the court to order the following Treatment of Class 5 Equity Interest.
Treatment: Provided that the General Administrative Claims, Professional Fee Claims, DIP Superpriority Deficiency Claims, Priority Tax Claims, Other Priority Claims, Other Secured Claims and DIP Secured Claims have been paid in full or otherwise satisfied as provided for in the Plan (or sufficient funds have been reserved to provide for such payment or satisfaction according to the terms of the Plan), any remaining assets of the Liquidating Trust will be distributed by the Liquidating Trustee Pro Rata to holders of Allowed Class 5 Claims. Equity Interest will not be canceled and extinguished before a resolution of the claim and resulting lawsuit against BP is resolved, including the resolution of appeals.

(you need to state an argument also, like the ones below)

• The BP 3.2 billion dollar claim alone would generate revenue to pay all classes ahead of equity holders, in full, leaving a substantial balance to the estate. With the “Forced” total liquidation of ATP assets along with lost revenue from these assets it is possible the BP claim could grow to $4 or $4.5 billion dollars. I will remind the court there is no cap on damages BP is faced with paying.

• “Sell-Down Procedures”, the estate has incurred significant net operating losses. Those loses have been described as a minimum $549 million dollars in court documents. Notably, the estate may lose the ability to use these Tax Attributes if it experiences an “ownership change”, again I ask the court not to cancel and extinguish the ownership of APT.

My guess it won’t do any good, but don’t want to look back and think, hell I should have sent an objection. After reading “Equity Holders” will get nothing and have their shares cancelled, thought the common and preferred would go sub penny. I won’t be able to listen to the hearing but if you hear Equity will get a place in line, please let me know.

Thanks for the offer; face value is $100 a share. You can have all of my shares at $120 a share.

Didn’t think you would be interested.

But there is a reason I am holding.

I still am holding my preferred shares, at this point in time I’m not selling. At any good news, my consider buying more bonds.

Fredthefrog, thanks for your post. Still here and holding.

Anyone listen to today’s hearing. Of course there was a closing dialog that wasn’t on the agenda. Sometimes people just can’t help themselves when they start talking and appear to be real happy.

We learned the hearing date for the final sale approval is set for October 17th. We heard about the hard work that Mr. Simon is doing with BOEM to get the new company, GOM Bidco, qualified as an operator in the GOM.

It may be more difficult than a few of these folks think, if they do not have the financial resources. Then they have Statoil to deal with regarding MC 941, MC 942. The Debtor is merely a sub-lessee of Statoil with respect to these leases as a matter of law. Statoil remains a record title owner with respect to these properties; the rights of the Debtor are solely derivative of the rights of Statoil. There is no contract between BOEM and the Debtor. So Mr. Simon will have to convince and satisfy not only BOEM but Statoil. Don’t think Statoil will want to be put into the same position that Anadarko was in, regarding the Gomez assets. Remember these operating rights are only for shallow wells under 18,000 ft.

We learned GOM Bidco will have a new name, which was not disclosed.

We will know who the GOM Bidco management team will be on October 3rd . Don’t think we will see any ATP current upper management listed.

We learned that the Dip Lenders have been making deals with those senior to their loans, maybe we will see these folks taking an equity interest in that new company. Those assets claimed by the dip must have some value.

We learned through Mr. Simon’s contacts, they have expedited an “asset evaluation” process needed to secure a new loan for GOM Bidco, which has not been finalized as yet. That evaluation on ATP’s books is $1.8 billion, would like to see what the DIP evaluation number might be, of course we won’t see that number.

And saving the best for last, which in fact was the last thing discussed, and the dialog was for only a minute or shorter, it appears ATP is working on a deal to sell shares in ATP UK and ATP MED. They did say “sell shares” not sell the company nor sell assets but “sell shares”. The judge stated, I will be seeing an 1129 plan for that and they confirmed it would be in the next couple of weeks. Don’t think we will see anything regarding this, but if you have an interest order the transcript on today’s hearing and read what was said for yourself.

New Orleans Inspector General Ed Quatrevaux was invited to appear at our St Tammany Parish Inspector General task force meeting. A Parish in most parts of the country is a “county”.

Mr. Quatrevaux addressed the panel and was asked about the need for a government watchdog office, Quatrevaux said he believed every parish (county) should have an IG.

Mr. Quatrevaux said "People do a lot of things they should not do. The world is not full of wonderful people, it's full of thieves and liars."

As some members of our Parish council were taken back by those comments, I had to smile by the honesty of the comment.

Mr. Quatrevaux went on to say, “Such people are often drawn to government” and told the group his office has identified $30 million in waste, fraud and attempted fraud in the past four years in New Orleans.”

You would have thought Mr. Quatrevaux had dropped a bomb on these civil servants when they heard the “Such People” comment.

Mr. Quatrevaux said he wasn't trying to single out anyone, but otherwise stood by his comments.

Does anyone here have any concerns regarding our ATP board members and management fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities to us equity holders? The top four ATP managers do make collectively $102,433 a month, which averages $25,608, but of course that is only $307K a year. They are the lowest paid “professional group” involved in this bankruptcy. Maybe we should have paid our management group more if we were to expect a fiduciary relationship.

Maybe Mr. Quatrevaux is wrong and the world is full of wonderful people.

Gracias por su mensaje, traductor Google ayuda con la barrera del idioma. Voy a presentar una objeción adicional a la corte.

Esta es la conexión con el movimiento de la Debto para aprobar un acuerdo con Anadarko. Básicamente Anadarko va withdrwan su atractivo y ATP va a pagar 3 millones de dólares.

Romang ……… this is an interesting twist. Thanks for sharing.

Of course we have not seen any “official” word regarding who the folks are that will be buying the ATP assets. We have seen John Simon’s name come up, he is an X Hess SVP. He put himself out there as CEO of “Newco” on his LinkedIn page. He left Hess in April / May 2013. There was a big change at Hess during this period. If you have an interest you can check the SEC filing by Hess during this time.

If this “Newco” is the same “Newco” established to buy the assets then we do know who might be the CEO. When looking at qualifications for an oil and gas CEO, one might think a person with a MBA might be desirable or maybe a degreed petroleum engineer with a MBA. From John’s LinkedIn page he holds a BSME degree from Texas A&I University which is now Texas A&M University–Kingsville. Of course a BSME is a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering.

For those that have listened to the hearing, there seems to be a lot of obstacles for the DIP to overcome and of course the DIP is only concerned about folks senior to them. From court hearing it appears those concerns are big enough for them not to find funding as yet, or at least two weeks ago as they claimed then. I don’t see how they can come out of this 363 sale getting the assets free and clear as ATP’s management has really screwed up the title to these properties in the deals they have put together and bills they have left unpaid.

It looks like per-petition creditors were allowed to file their lis Pendens liens in accordance with the Louisiana Oil Well lien Act, “LOWLA”, against the assets the dip are buying. The dip said in court hearings two weeks ago they were still trying to put a financing deal together, and stated a “Lis Pendens” filed against the property kills financing deals. The judge said those same liens will be heard by the court and if they are attached to the property so be it. We also learned that this lien group formed a committee to negotiate with the DIP.

We now have the post-petition creditors who are owed major dollars, the ORRI and NPI folks who’s interest travels with the assets and the lis pendens lien holders all wanting to get paid. It was interesting to hear the arguments, at one point in the hearing two weeks ago it got a little out of hand, it reminded me of a pack of dogs fighting over whom was going to get to eat first. The judge had to order everyone to be quiet, the court recorder could not keep up and folks needed to speak one at a time.

Nothing like doing a credit bid and then having to put in a couple of $100M cash, just to get the deal closed and of course the Dip needs to prove to the court the buyer can sustain the assets as required by federal law concerning oil and gas properties. If this group doesn’t have a substantial balance sheet, they will have to post a very large bond to be an operator in the GOM.

Why would a group of finance guys want to start an oil company, maximum fine of $1.1K per barrel for illegal discharge and if negligent, as most new to the game might be, a fine of $4.3K a barrel and an excuse of “we didn’t know” carries no weight.

Just me but if all of these financial responsibilities travel with the assets the DIP will have to come up with substantial additional dollars; maybe just short of couple hundred million or make these parties equity holders in “Newco”. I don’t think the court can order these folks to become equity holders, as this is an asset sale and not reorganization. So would you rather be an equity holder in a publicly traded company; a reorganized ATP or an equity holder in a privately held “Newco” company?

Maybe just maybe the cards the dip are holding aren’t as good as they thought. I do remember the judge telling the dip their credit bid of $640 million was not going to be adjusted down if they elect to reject some of the assets they identified in their credit bid. And I don’t think they can go back to well and try and claim more assets the court said they could not have and or they rejected like the BP claim.

Reorganize the company. Let all the victims of ATP’s management get their fair share of what is owed to them in equity of a reorganized company. Why do you need a bigger piece of the pie because you are first in line? Take what is owed to you in stock of the new company, hold or sell those certificates as you see fit. With new management you just might make more money than you might think, but a management with proven success, with degreed petroleum engineers that hold MBA’s and not folks who didn’t make the cut and or drove a company into bankruptcy like our current management.

Of course it’s not the corporate way, someone or some group has always got to win or lose; get the short end of the stick. Why do folks love to stick their hand in other folks pockets and of course it is more fun when our legal system lets them do that. With the size of the post-petition debt that is owed, the ORRI and NPI interest that travels with the assets and now the lis pendens issues, it may be hard for the dip to get their hands in these folk’s pockets.

Kramer 38 posted on Silicon Investor; June production from GC 300 #S4 well (Clipper) was 191,532 barrels of oil and 98,071 MMCF, together sold for approx. $19.8MM. I hear the second well will begin first production during September, pending a permit from BOEMRE.

What I find concerning is; “I hear the second well will begin first production during September, pending a permit from BOEMRE”.

We are all told the dip will be purchasing these assets with their credit bid, why is the estate paying for this second well when it is clear the dip will own the property. The Dip will not be paying one penny more for the asset, but the estate is putting millions of dollars into this asset to bring this well on line.

The estate can’t even use one penny of the revenue from the increased production without the DIP’s approval. The Dip benefits directly from the property improvements and the estate is stuck with the bill, of course an insolvent estate can’t pay the bill for the improvements.

Is it not concerning that the suppliers doing this post-petition work have not been paid in some time as they have filed claims against the estate for the work. Romang has spoken of fraud on this board. If one were to research bankruptcy fraud and see if you don’t see some similarities with what is going on with this second well and the various terms “Bustouts”, “Bleedouts”, “White Knight Bleedouts” and now a new term “DIP Creditor Bleedouts” or the more popular term “Assignment for the Benefit of Creditor”.

Conspiracy to Commit Bankruptcy Fraud, 18 U.S.C. Section 371: Is If two individuals are involved in the scheme, conspiracy may also be charged.

Why would our management agree to continue to use the estates funds to improve this property??????

Does anyone find this concerning that our management, who is “hell-bent” on getting the 363 sale approved and closed, is using estate funds to pay for a second well that the dip lenders have claimed in a credit bid?

For those that have an interest. ATP is incorporated in Texas, all one needs for a “special meeting” is to fulfill the requirements as required by the Articles of Incorporation and or the “bylaws” plus a “State” judge to issue an order, if needed.

I found the Articles of Incorporation in SEC document S-1/A dated 12/12/2000.

Article five states 50% of all shares entitled to vote can call a special meeting and also points to the bylaws. The bylaws state 10% ten cent of all votes entitled to vote. Since the articles of Incorporation point to the “the bylaws”, I would think that only 10% of the votes, entitled to vote, could call a special meeting. Read them for yourself and you decide.


ARTICLE FIVE of the ATP Articles of Incorporation

An annual meeting of the shareholders shall be held at such times as may be stated or fixed in accordance with the bylaws. Special meetings may only be called (1) by the Chairman of the Board (if any), the President, the Board of Directors, or such other person or persons as may be authorized in the articles of incorporation or the bylaws or (2) by the holders of not less than fifty (50)percent of all the shares entitled to vote at the proposed special meeting.


Section Four of the By-laws.

Section 4. Special Meetings. Unless otherwise provided in the Articles of Incorporation, special meetings of the shareholders for any proper purpose or purposes may be called at any time by (a) the Chairman of the Board (if any),the President, the Board of Directors, or such other person or persons as may be authorized in the Articles of Incorporation or (b) unless the Articles of Incorporation provide otherwise, the holders of issued and outstanding shares representing at least ten percent of all the votes entitled to be cast at the proposed special meeting.

If not otherwise stated in or fixed in accordance with the remaining provisions hereof, the record date for determining shareholders entitled to call a special meeting is the date any shareholder first signs the notice of that meeting.

Only business within the purpose or purposes described in the notice (or waiver thereof) required by these bylaws may be conducted at a special meeting of the shareholders.

Shareholders Do Retain Significant Rights in Bankruptcy

The shareholders of companies in Bankruptcy have in the past sought a shareholders meeting to remove existing directors and management and to elect new ones that would provide a more favorable treatment to the equity holders. The 2nd U.S. Circuit court of appeals ruled corporate governance rights are not affected by the automatic stay embodied in Bankruptcy Code Section 362. Thus, if shareholders are displeased with the way directors or the chief restructuring officer (CRO) are managing the debtor or directing the course of the Chapter 11 case, they may invoke these rights to regain control of the company by removing the incumbent directors and electing new directors. In such a case, the new directors may change the course of the case, perhaps terminating the services of the incumbent CRO.

The court stated; this right could be impaired only by the issuance of an injunction based on a showing that the shareholders were guilty of “clear abuse” in calling such a meeting. Delaware courts soon followed, holding similarly that shareholders’ rights continue during bankruptcy, irrespective of the degree of insolvency of the company.

These decisions by highly regarded courts upholding the rights of shareholders to govern their companies during a bankruptcy case can be found in Johns-Manville and U.S. Energy cases. For the most part, shareholders are largely disenfranchised once a company files for bankruptcy protection. The U.S. Bankruptcy Code grants very limited rights to shareholders, such as the right to appear and be heard by the Bankruptcy Court and the right to vote on a plan of reorganization. Again, the 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals ruled corporate governance rights are not affected.

Although the United States Trustee may appoint a committee of equity security holders under Section 1102 of the Bankruptcy Code, we know what happened in our case, when no money was granted to this committee. Shareholders generally are left to rely on the decisions of the company’s incumbent management directors and any newly appointed crisis manager to protect and advance their interests. Our company’s management and their “sound business decisions” have been questioned in court documents by equity holders. Under most state laws and related corporate governance documents, shareholders hold very powerful corporate governance rights, including the right to call a shareholders’ meeting and to replace a board of directors. These rights reflect the well-established policy of “corporate democracy” that underlies state business and corporation laws.

Replacing our board, current management and the CRO would significantly impact the direction of our case. It certainly would cause a delay in the reorganization, liquidation and possibly the loss of or the renegotiation of agreements already in place with some of the debtor’s creditors. This might be argued by the court, current board and management as “clear abuse”. If the shareholders are seeking reorganization vs. liquidation this could hardly be defined as “clear abuse”. Corporate shareholders and other “equity holders” hold panoply of rights under state laws, bylaws, and certificates of incorporation. These go well beyond the right to elect directors. The finely crafted balance of bargaining power in a bankruptcy case may face a significant upset if shareholders who are outside the reach of the automatic stay begin to assert their governance rights in state courts as opposed to the debtor’s home court, the bankruptcy court.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rulings are clear; the passage into bankruptcy does not sound the death knell for the stockholders’ role in corporate governance. If the primary purpose of Chapter 11 is the rehabilitation of debtor corporation, there is no reason to disenfranchise equity holders so long as their exercise of voting rights does not impair such rehabilitation. Liquidation is not rehabilitation!

Thus, although it may appear that shareholders will have little influence on the reorganization of a corporate debtor in a bankruptcy case, shareholders rightfully may use their corporate governance rights to gain leverage in negotiations involving their rights, such as in the formulation of a plan of reorganization vs. a liquidation plan.

Now what to do?

If you are happy with the board of directors and managements direction of liquidation and insolvency, send a letter of support to the board and court. I’m sure they would like to hear from you.

If you are not happy, read the Johns-Manville and U.S Energy Systems decisions; if you agree that we do have these rights, write a letter to the ATP board of directors requesting a special meeting of stockholders to discuss retaining the current board and management or replacing them. This request should be based on the fiduciary responsibilities and the sound business judgment in management’s decision and board approval of a liquidation plan vs. “no” plan for reorganization. Also state you are a “current” stockholder of record and whose name your shares are held in. I would suggest you copy the court.

Second, write a letter to the court requesting a special stockholders meeting and ask the court to order a meeting for the same purpose as stated in your letter to the board. I would suggest you copy the board with the courts letter. These letters will have you on record as requesting this special meeting. If the special meeting is denied then you will be on record as requesting the meeting, and your rights denied. There is nothing like having a document that shows your rights were denied.

You really have to love those legal boys and girls. The below is a current article on the BP case as lawyers present any argument to protect their client’s interest, as they should, when they are paid $500 plus an hour.

But first remember, BP held a 65% interest in Macondo, Anadarko a 25% interest and MOEX Offershore a 10% interest. MOEX is owned by Mitsui one of the largest corporate conglomerates in Japan. MOEX was first to pay BP for its share of damages and responsibility at $1.07 billion, then Anadarko paid BP $4 billion dollars for its responsibility which left BP responsible to pay the balance of whatever that number might be. Looks like Anadarko and Mitsui got off real cheap, monster mistake by BP.

Also remember BP admitted in its guilty plea to criminal charges, for which it was fined $4 billion in criminal penalties that it "negligently discharged and caused to be discharged oil from the Macondo well." How does one plead guilty and then argue the below????

It’s all about the money. And of course the trial in New Orleans is also; “all about the money”. The largest oil spill in history will also produce the largest payouts in history.

Logic would support that “one private company will be paid more than other private company’s filing claims”. One company will hold that number one spot.“ ATP just might be that company, as how many billion dollar corporations went BK because of the spill as claimed by ATP management?

But again we have our current management in place, a management that can’t get a post-petition budget right and or deliver projects on time, budget overruns and project delays is what has been deliveried. Why would anyone think they would use “Sound Business Judgment” in getting the best value to the estate from BP. We might get enough money just to pay the Dip off, but one should not count on that level of success from this group.

The article:

BP, Anadarko tell appeals court they shouldn't be fined for Deepwater Horizon oil spill

By Mark Schleifstein, NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune
August 27, 2013 at 7:01 PM, updated August 27, 2013 at 7:48 PM

BP and Anadarko Petroleum Corp., which held a 25 percent interest in BP's ill-fated Macondo oil and gas well, told the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals last week that they should not be fined under the Clean Water Act for the oil spill resulting from the Deepwater Horizon explosion and sinking.

The two hang their argument on a single word: "or." That word appears in a section of the Clean Water Act that lists who can be fined for violating the pollution law. If their argument succeeds, the companies could escape billions of dollars in fines.

The section of the Clean Water Act at issue says: "Any person who is the owner, operator, or person in charge of any vessel, onshore facility or offshore facility from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged ..." is considered responsible for the fines to be levied under the law. The law calls for a maximum fine of $1,100 per barrel, if the party causing the spill is negligent, or as much as $4,300 a barrel if the party is found to be grossly negligent.

According to BP and Anadarko, the source of oil was the Deepwater Horizon and the pipe its crew installed connecting the well to the ship, making only its owner, Transocean, responsible under the law.

Oil began leaking from the BP well into the ocean when the blowout of gas and oil from the BP Macondo well reached the deck of the mobile offshore drilling unit and exploded, resulting in the deaths of 11 workers, the ship's sinking and the failure of a riser pipe connecting the mile-deep well to the ship.

The Justice Department had argued that there were multiple sources of the oil during the spill: the well, several locations where there were holes in the riser pipe, and from the Deepwater Horizon.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, in a Feb. 22, 2012, ruling, said there was only one source of oil: BP's well.

Barbier oversees the ongoing trial that will determine how much BP and Anadarko will be fined. Transocean already has agreed to a $1 billion Clean Water Act civil fine as part of a settlement with the Justice Department of criminal charges stemming from the accident.

In their appeal of that ruling, BP and Anadarko agreed that there was only one source of the oil, but said it was Transocean's Deepwater Horizon.

In support of part of Barbier's ruling, they argue that previous court rulings and a reading of the statute requires that "any vessel, onshore facility or offshore facility" be read as requiring only the Deepwater Horizon or the BP well, which would be the offshore facility, be subject to a fine, and not both.

In briefs filed in the 5th Circuit last week, BP argued that Barbier's ruling was incorrect because the failures leading to the spill resulted from actions taken by Transocean, including the failure of Transocean employees aboard the ship to recognize a blowout was occurring and the failure of a blowout preventer, placed atop the well by Transocean, to shut off the flow of oil and gas as the blowout occurred and afterwards.

BP also argued that Barbier's ruling holding it liable for the fines was made before the courtroom portion of the trial began, and thus was improper because evidence presented during the first phase of the trial will determine who is liable for the blowout, a decision still being considered by the judge.

In its brief opposing Barbier's ruling, Anadarko said it was clear that the first oil to enter the Gulf of Mexico came from the Deepwater Horizon.

"Before the vessel sank, the harmful discharge of oil came from the vessel's derrick and mud gas separator above the surface of the water," the brief said. "Hydrocarbons rained down upon the deck of the Deepwater Horizon and flowed into the Gulf of Mexico. They then ignited and they and the vessel burned for 36 hours. After the vessel sank, oil continued to discharge from the broken riser below the surface. The point of the discharge was always the vessel's appurtenances."

In an earlier brief, Justice Department attorneys argued in favor of the part of Barbier's ruling finding BP and Anadarko to be subject to the fines, saying BP had admitted in its response to the original federal lawsuit that oil "flowed into the Gulf of Mexico from the Macondo well for 87 days."

BP also admitted it violated a different section of the Clean Water Act that describes the types of spills that are a violation of federal law as part of its guilty plea to criminal charges, for which it was fined $4 billion in criminal penalties. In the guilty plea, the company said it "negligently discharged and caused to be discharged oil from the Macondo well."

The appeal of Barbier's Clean Water Act fines ruling is one of several Barbier rulings stemming from the civil case that are pending before the 5th Circuit. The appeals court has given no indication when it will rule on any of them

It is amazing to see the number of property liens that claim to have priority over the dip loan. But in ATP’s case it is not surprising, with our upper management. Logic would suggest that upper management be dismissed in a BK case and the worker bees, those that do the “real” work be retained. Of course the worker bees were dismissed and upper management, who has no clue to what the worker bees do, was retained. Hornbeck just filed a $4.775 million senior lien complaint. Hornbeck in its filing; claims the cost and expense of the Dip facility to the estate is in excess of $140 million dollars. I would guess they, Hornbeck, think the dip can afford to pony up more “cash” money. In addition, Bluewater has file a lien and privilege senior claim in the amount of $17.2 million.

Things are now really starting to get interesting; liquidation vs. reorganization has gotten more than a little messy. Technip filed for payment of their post-petition work of $21.772 million dollars. Add up all the priority first liens that claim to be senior to the dip, the overriding royalties that have to be paid and the post-petition payables. The $55 million to pay creditors senior to the dip has vanished. The dip is going to have to put more money into the $55 million dollar hat and if they don’t I would not be surprised if the whole deal doesn’t just fall apart.

That does not mean anyone below the dip will get paid. My guess short of putting in another $100 million dollars, the dip will try to reorganize the company. Everyone above the dip will get a piece of the reorganized company converting that debt into equity. This would save the dip the $55 million cash they currently need and any additional monies they might have to come up with. With the reorganized company, all assets stay with the company. They may even reconsider the Gomez properties if a deal can be made with the production owners, recovering that 80% interest. Remember there is the appeal over allowing the Gomez property to be abandoned.

If you’re trying to steal the company, the liquidation process appears to be the cleanest, until senior property liens and overriding production interests come along with the property. To clean these up you need cash, so reorganize, take your interest in ownership, give an interest to those senior to yours and you have saved yourself millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars.

Of course the dip didn’t allow funding for a reorganization effort, but now maybe a reorganized company that only gives the dip and those senior to their interest, the company, just might be in order. Maybe that’s why we have seen the production revenue increase; they need more money to fund this approach to stealing the company as they surely don’t want to put any more of their own money into this deal.

It’s not over yet! But again I am probably wrong!

Yesterday was an interesting day; some may recall we had a scheduled hearing at 1:30. The agenda was amended on Wednesday, with that, everyone basically pushed out to September. Wasn’t really planning on listening in! Than yesterday, hearing day, we had another amended hearing notice at the eleventh hour. A status update on the 363 sale was scheduled as the only item on the agenda that was going to be discussed. And of course, I didn’t see the change until it was too late to call in.

I would think this status update would have had a lot of interest and the debtor’s management throws this status update in at the eleventh hour with minimum notice.

Another disclosure issue regarding due process, we had a meeting, you should have been there and if you don’t like it, tough! You can order the transcript if you have a need to know!

I think if we all knew there was going to be a 363 sale status update more people might have dropped into the court room and or called in.

Go look at the agenda changes to yesterday scheduled hearing. The games folks like to play to make sure they get their way.

Don’t you just love to read the MOR? Revenues for July were $40.194 million, income from operations was $26.5 million and net income was $14.294 million. July was reported in the black.

Total income from the post-petition date has been $389.25 million. Total lease operating expense for this same period has been $92.08 million. Operations have been making money.

So why is the total post-petition operating expense $547.48 million, which is stated as an operations loss of $158.2 million over this period? Appears the company doesn’t have any “real operational income’ with this reported loss.

The proof is in the details, for this period of post-petition we have Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization expense of $148.85 million, this is a “paper” loss to shelter the income. We also see for this same period an expense for Impairment of Oil and Gas properties of $204.183 million, this is another “paper” loss to shelter the income. So now we have “paper losses” of $353.03 million of the reported $547.48 million in total operational expenses. These “paper loss” are structured to shelter income from taxes. It does not mean the company is not making money from operations. Remove these paper losses and net income would be $194.8 million in the black.

We all understand depreciation, if you buy a rental building for say 2.8 billion dollar, the value of ATP’s assts. You get to write off that value over time, so if the depreciation schedule is say ten years, you get to write off $280 million a year for 10 years. Of course the book value of that asset decreases by the depreciation value taken, $280 million a year. Does it make that asset worth less, no! You make improvements to the building you get to write these improvements off also. Remember ATP assets are reported as their book value after depreciation.

Depletion is another write off oil and gas companies get. Simply, as the reservoir is produced it depletes in volume, you get a write off based on that depletion, when you find more reserves to produce from you get more depletion dollars to write off as you produce those reserves.

Impairment of Oil and Gas properties is another paper write off used by oil and gas companies, paper losses.

Take away the “paper loss” and you have $194.45 million of operational expense on $389.25 million of revenue. Operations produced $194.8 million in net income, without the paper loss, for the post-petition period.

Then add the expense of $72.925 million reported as Processing Fees of Related Parties for this same period. This is another “paper write off”, this money moved from one hand to the other, Related Parties. Add that “paper write off “ back into the $194.45 million in net income and you have $267.37 million of net operational revenue for the post-petition period. Yes, $267.37 million of net operational revenue.

Remember that $389.35 million in revenue cost $92.08 million in operating expenses and the return was $267.37 million in net operational revenue once the paper writes offs are removed and those paper write offs sheltered all of the operational income. So no taxable income!

As owners of ATP we haven’t see any detailed financials required by the SEC, but looking at only the MOR net revenue numbers who thinks a reorganization plan that converts all of the debt of our company into equity would not work? I ask, if we had a debt free company with a net operational income of $267.37 million a year and assets totaling $2.8 billion, what would be the market capitalization value of our company? But again, liquidation of assets has been the order from day one.

As we have learned through court hearing disclosure our management chose a path of liquidation over reorganization, as they tell us the dip would not provide funding for a reorganization effort. You will find that information in Mr. Latimer’s testimony during the hearing to approve the 363 sale. Shortly after, the judge ruled he would not consider any argument regarding sound business judgment. If the dip would not fund a reorganization effort, then sound business judgment would be to liquidate. Just the facts please, no seconding guessing allowed.

Total asset value report in the MOR is now $2.804 billion in “depreciated book value” and the Dip is buying the assets for $640 million. The court is not looking after the equity holder’s best interest or the interest of any stakeholder including creditors. Over time I now believe the court is not even concerned about getting the “best value” for the estate. It’s just a “business deal”, and who holds a legal position to get paid first. Just me, but there might be some hope in our managements incompetence.

Incompetent folks make lots of mistakes; they may have made some mistakes in their accounting of who holds secure liens against the assets. The Dip may not be willing to pony up another 100 million to pay off the secure liens senior to theirs and is hoping the court will not allow these claims. Remember the $1.5 billion in second liens, bond holders were not willing to pony up the cash to pay off the dip and now they, we, get nothing. It’s just a business deal.

As we patiently wait for confirmed dollars to appear in Avalon’s bank account, and for those folks that purchase Avalon shares at $.30’ sorry for your misfortune. Today Avalon closed at $.18.

Remember the July 9th press release:
July 09, 2013 Avalon Oil and Gas, Inc. (Avalon) (OTCBB: AOGN) today announced that Recon Technology, Ltd, (Nasdaq: RCON) ("Recon") a leading Chinese non-state-owned oilfield services provider, has purchased 2,800,000 shares of Avalon's common stock. After this investment, Recon will own 32.22% of Avalon's outstanding shares.

Don’t you think this would require a SEC filing, folks go to the SEC web page, company filings and see what Avalon filed on 8/16.

Notification of inability to timely file Form 10-Q or 10-QSB. Nothing was filed with the SEC regarding this press release. Come on KR show me you have just $500,000 of cash in your bank account.

I was finally able to read Greystar’s original complaint, court document 2411, it took forever to download.

Greystar claims they have senior liens prior to the dip totaling $7.1 million. Don’t think this payout was in the $55M budgeted for senior security holders. More than likely there are a few more folks out there that have the same type of lien claims.

Court document 2413, ERA Helicopter also claims to have senior liens for $2.4 million. Man these senior liens keep adding up. My guess the DIP will need another $50 million added to the $55 million “cash” pot.

All of the ATP debt is listed in court documents; maybe just maybe some of this debt was listed in the wrong bucket. It is going to be hard for the court not to pay these secured lien folks first and the dip will have to provide cash for the payouts or the liens travels with the assets. When the unpaid liens travel with the asset, we just might see the lien holders foreclose on the dip. Wouldn’t that be poetic justice?

We still don’t know who the DIP sold the assets to, do you think these folks really want to start an oil and gas company. Who wants to buy these assets with the liens attached? Just me, a reorganized ATP where everyone wins makes more sense; debt for equity and you have a debt free company. It is easier to sell public shares down the road, but of course the current ATP management would have to be replaced.

Management fiduciary responsibility has been forgotten here. It would be nice to see what “bonus” dollars the current ATP management will receive for staying to the end. You know they all have a structured “Bonus” for closing the company down, why else would they stay??? My guess would be in the millions of dollar range for the group; of course those at the top get more than those near the bottom. Remember all of the nondisclosures issues; they are in play here also. Our management thinks we as owners of the company, have no need to know this information.

As owners don’t we have a right to know? Of course we don’t, due process has abandoned us, we have been disenfranchised by our management and that means we have no voice, we receive only limited information and we have no vote, regardless of the protections in ATP’s articles of incorporation and what SEC rules and regulations might require.

Our official committee of equity holders received “No court ordered funding”, the court elected to grant the official committee of equity holders “No Funding”, knowing through its learned judgment, this action would seriously restrict the due process rights of equity holders. Fundamental fairness is not found here, without funding the committee was resource restricted and equal due process was denied.

As the court has demonstrated in its rulings that it does understand the amount of professional fees and expense reimbursements that would be needed to be awarded: as referenced in its orders granting other official committees millions of dollars in compensation. They gave our committee no funding, as our committee at that time agreed to a percent of our recovery. If disclosures were made to us regarding a liquidation of assets vs. reorganization, do you think anyone would have agreed to a percent of our recovery? Other committees received millions in court ordered funding, our “equity committee”, representing owners of the company if you will, got nothing.

Yes, our management did object to the forming of an “equity committee” and yes other “equity committees” in BK cases have been provided with funding. But not ours, so let’s go to battle for our rights of equal protection with no money and trust the court and our management will protect us. The court has found that our management has used “sound business judgment”. We have no money to argue that point, only our cards and letters. Is this equal protection; cards and letters vs. millions of dollars of funding?

Not only has our management abandoned their fiduciary responsibilities to us, they will be walking away with a sizable bonus for staying to the end. Last year T Paul was paid to step down as President, information that was not disclosed to us. It is all in these non-disclosed agreements to stay and resign. We in time will see these documents in court; because these folks want to get paid and to get paid you need a piece of paper. T. Paul’s agreement is still in a nondisclosure status, but it too will find its way to disclosure in time.

From IHUB information it appears there are only 81 followers of this ATP focused site. Is it fair and reasonable that 81 of us can make a difference? I for one believe it is possible that “one voice” can make a difference. Let your voice be heard in court, write a letter.

When you now see all of these “secured lien” folks lining up, a million here and a million there; the $55 million will be used up pretty quick and then the unpaid liens travel with the assets.

We still don’t know who the “real owners” of the assets will be. Maybe those new owners are not sure what debt will travel with the assets they are buying, and just aren’t quite sure they want to be a party to this purchase. This whole thing may cost them, the new owners, more money than they think and or are willing to pay. I think somewhere in the court filing the DIP called ATP management incompetent in their budgeting efforts. And ATP’s management said they would not engage in name calling. I guess when history proves someone to be incompetent the best defense would be their silence. I wouldn’t be surprised if the DIP APA (Asset Purchase Agreement) doesn’t change again, or maybe even withdrawn as more dollars in secured claims are thrown into the hat to be paid.

With the wells not producing, as we know they are capable, of course preserving that value for the new owners, we do have a storm brewing in the Northwest Caribbean Sea; they say it has a good chance of becoming tropical in a few days. Protocol requires all GOM oil and gas assets to be basically shut down and / or shut in during tropical storms and hurricanes. Of course these expenses for this activity were not budgeted and the costs will become a post-petition expense eating up even more dollars. Adding; a second storm is being watched as it is starting to develop. Kind of appropriate as ATP filed its Voluntary Petition for Bankruptcy on Friday August 17, 2012, one year ago this coming Saturday.

You asked about the BP suit. It still appears to be a circus here, the suit has seen some legal challenges brought by PB on a number of fronts recently, but they have basically gone nowhere. It will be an interesting September / October. I did see BP has allocated a few more billions to pay claims, more than likely we will see them allocated a few more billion next quarter, we know they can afford it. I do believe ATP will be paid, but ATP management might settle with BP for a lot less money than folks are hoping for. We do know ATP management has a history of making very bad business deals. Don’t believe I would want any of these folks on my management team and forget about the board members, someone needs to wake these folks up.

Romang …… good morning ……. Just me, but I was reading court document #2372.

Have you or anyone had a chance to read this document? It is an interesting read.

Care to take a look and discuss?

That is the third restatement of pre-petition asset and liability data dating back to 2012.

The only real data we have been able to see is the MOR. Non-disclosure in this case prohibits any real analysis, SEC required disclosure and ATP’s articles of incorporation required disclosure have been thrown out the window here.

The only disclosure we get is in bits and pieces after the fact. Information that makes it way to the courts public record! All documents sent to the clerk of court regarding this case become public record. If you sent a letter to the court it becomes public record. If you have not seen your letter on the KCC web page there is a reason that document was not posted and there is a reason it was posted. That KCC site is the debtor’s site and not the courts. Not all public records of this case will make their way to the KCC site.

If you want all information filed in this case you need to pay for it through the court. In this BK case, things are never what they appear to be.

One would have to read the complaint by the government, as I have read the complaint I thought the complaint was BS.

The complaint states, there was no evidence of any discharge, the only finding was a charge that the discharge system was not plumbed properly, meaning they found plumbing on the discharge side of the separator.

Since we have numerous disclosure issues here, my guess that problem was address months ago and the inspector really don’t know what he or she was looking at.

This is an old platform that had been plumbed years ago; no one in their right mind would by-pass the separator intentionally.

Remember ATP has a suit against the department of interior, new inspectors were hired, and folks need to find issues to support their role. Even if those issues were BS.

If you have read something different please educate me.