Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Yes there was, and all other official committees were funded with millions of dollars of the debtor’s money, ordered by the court.
The official committee of equity holders received no funding from the court. How do you feel about all others committees receiving millions of dollars of funding and the equity committee receives “No Funding”. Do you think you might have a due process issue?
No it is not my profession, but we have way too many lawyers in our family and I am very proud of each and every one of them for what they have accomplished. We even have a federal judge in the mix.
I do interface with lawyers in my role at work and have a number of good friends who are lawyers; with that I might seek the advice of the “really good lawyers” I know from time to time, as I would buy them lunch or maybe a drink.
No one should be afraid to voice their views and or concerns to a court of law or in fact to anyone. As you want to be treated with respect so do others, be respectful but also make sure your views and concerns are addressed. As owners, equity holders, of ATP we do have rights. Some folks would like to restrict those rights and will do whatever they please. If we don’t speak up, they will continue to do whatever they please, for as long as they can get away with it.
I have asked folks here to write to the court and voice your views and concerns. Some might feel they would like to write but are not sure what to say and don’t want to embarrass themselves. You will find in most write in campaigns, there are forms that folks just fill in their names, sign and mail.
I have developed an objection below that I will be sending the court, where is says fill in your name, I will be putting my name in and signing the objection along with providing my address.
Simply I have developed an objection that can be used by others. If you don’t agree with the objection below please do not send it to the court. In fact you might want to send to the court the fact that you don’t agree to the objection below.
The objection was developed based on my belief that we as equity holders haven’t and aren’t receiving due process protection. I also believe that we have been disenfranchised by our management.
My reasons are stated in the objection. Of course I believe the court will over rule my objection but I have reserved my rights to object if I want to take my concerns to a higher court. My objection is based on fifth and fourteenth amendment rights we all have.
If you think your fifth and fourteenth amendments rights have not been protected in this case I would offer this “form” objection to be submitted to the court by you. Use this form as you may.
Send to
Clerk of Court
Judge Isgur
United States Bankruptcy Court
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
515 Rusk Avenue
Houston, TX 77002
ATP Oil & Gas Corporation 12-36187
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
OBJECTION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS OF (YOUR NAME), EQUITY HOLDER IN ATP OIL & GAS CORPORATION, AN OWNER OF THE CORPORATION, OBJECTION TO ALL COURT RULINGS AFTER NOVEMBER 20TH 2012, AS THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION CONTAIN THE RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS; WHEREAS
Procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness. The United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.
Adequate notice does not mean, all information except information that have been deemed as Non-Disclosure materials, opportunity to be heard does not mean only licensed attorneys, and or one’s ability to pay attorneys does not forfeit ones rights of due process; is it fundamental fairness to provided court ordered funding of millions of dollars for some official committees and not for others when it is obvious to the court that the lack of funding will deprive individuals of their due process rights.
The official committee of equity holders were restricted by Court ordered Non-Disclosure in their ability to adequately notify equity holders, due process denied. The committee itself was also a victim of Non-disclosure and due process notification. By providing court ordered funding for some official committees and not for all, restricted the right of equity holder’s due process right to be heard in the proceeding. A violation of fundamental fairness in equal due process protection for all, selective due process.
It is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery to take away the property of a person who has not received equal due process protection and it is the responsibility of the court to insure equal due process protection. 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. 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.
The court has received hundreds of letters of concern from equity holders, owners of the company. Those letters of concern were sent to insure a voice in the hearing, equal protection of due process, they were not presented by lawyers, they were sent by owners of the company looking for fundamental fairness, wanting a voice in the process. ATP’s management has disenfranchised equity holders from the process, non-disclosed issues cloak these proceedings from fundamental fairness and equity holders question the sound business judgment of its management. When owners of the company question business judgment, should not the court listen? Disenfranchised means we have no voice, no we have knowledge and we have no vote, regardless of what ATP’s articles of incorporation might say. We also have no protection regardless of what SEC rules and regulations might say. It is inherently unfair for the judicial machinery to take away the property of a person whose ownership rights to property have been disenfranchised and who has not received equal due process protection.
As an equity holder, owner of the company, I have an objection to all of the court’s rulings after November 20th, 2013. This objection is based on lack of due process protection and fundamental fairness to equity holders in the proceedings. As November 20th, 2013 I view myself as a disenfranchised owner of ATP. I believe my objections will be overruled by the court, but reserve my rights as an owner of ATP and the right of due process protection.
Respectfully,
Your signature
Your name
You’re Address
As we wait for a miracle, which I believe we just might see if Lydia Protopapas, Anadarko, and others are successful with their appeal. But most here have lost interest and it is not surprising as folks will just move on.
If Lydia and others are “unsuccessful” with their appeal, I will be sending letters to the Gulf States Senators and Representatives, the Governors and Attorney Generals of each of the Gulf State, informing them of the side deals the BOEM and BSEE regional offices are making, deals some think they are not authorized to make at their level. It will be interesting to see what Sally Jewell will say as the new head of the Department of Interior. You also might want to send a letter to these folks yourself if you feel the same. I am referring to decommission responsibilities and how BOEM and BSEE have basically given ATP a free pass, some will argue it’s not a free pass. Anadarko and other have a big issue with this, therefore their appeal.
But for those that still have an interest, you will notice in my post the information I shared concerning Professionals Expenses was not correct. I stated the month of June, but these numbers were for May. If you happened to look at the June numbers you would only see a credit for $564,252, which in itself is very interesting!
That credit came from Milbank, Tweed, Hadley and McCloy and the footnote reads amount represents a refund of a payment made in May 2013. You may recall these folks are counsel to the official committee of unsecured creditors. They have also billed the court recently, court document 2331, an additional $1.9 million dollars. Add that number to the $3.45 million dollars these folks have already been paid, since February of 2013, the new total will be $5.35 million.
I just cannot help but smile when reading this document #2331. The Court has concluded that the services detailed in the application provided substantial benefit to the Committee and the estate. The Court has further considered the following factors set forth in In re First Colonial Corp. of America, 544 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 904 (1977) in determining the amount of professional fees and expense reimbursements to be awarded:
The time and labor required;
• The novelty and difficulty of the questions;
• The skill requisite to perform the services properly;
• The preclusion of other employment by the attorneys due to acceptance of the case;
• Customary fees;
• Whether the fee is fixed or contingent;
• Time limitations imposed by the client or other circumstances;
• The amount of time involved and the result obtained;
• The experience, reputation and ability of the attorneys;
• The “undesirability” of the case;
• The nature and length of the professional relationship with the client; and
• Awards in similar cases.
We all know the United States leads the world in a number of categories. While most of our achievements are worth celebrating, others are not. Our legal system is the world's costliest. Abuse saps resources businesses could otherwise use to create jobs or expand and maybe just reorganize in chapter 11 cases. In fact, these costs in the United States amount to roughly 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). But nobody really cares; and that is why I have to smile; when one lawyer “judges” another lawyer in determining the amount of professional fees and expense reimbursements to be awarded. You can’t help but chuckle.
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley and McCloy, counsel to the official committee of unsecured creditors refunded the court $564,252 in June. Does anyone recall in the court hearings any dialog concerning this refund? Why was there a refund? Do you think this to be another Non-disclosure issue, therefore no need to disclose? So now one needs to find bits and pieces of disclosure.
How many pre-petition unsecured creditors are being paid from the proceeds of the 363 sale? Anyone recall any dialog in the court hearings regarding the payment to any pre-petition unsecured creditor. None I recall, of course we all know none of these folks will be paid a dime regarding pre-petition debt if the 363 sale is approved. Maybe someone can tell me what value the counsel to the official committee of unsecured creditors brought to the table that would warrant these millions of dollars of payments. So we find more bits and pieces of disclosure.
We have some very large pre-petition unsecured debt. Some of these same unsecured creditors have supplied post-petition work on ATP’s assets, the same assets the dip lenders have claimed. The court (BK) and DIP financing provided for post-petition payments, in which these creditors have been paid and or will be paid for work post-petition; if those monies were available for that payment. The 363 sale will leave the company insolvent; money will be needed to pay post-petition work as these folks, jump the line to be paid.
The last minute deal the committee of unsecured creditors worked on was all about additional funds provided by the dip. To pay what, post position work the pre-petition unsecured creditor had invoiced. Simple math at the time would suggest there would not be enough money to pay for this work if APT became insolvent. Therefore the committee legal counsel went to work. These payments are now coming up as administrated expense claims in court filing, everyone is trying to get in line and get these type of claims paid before ATP runs out of money, as they know ATP management has had budgeting issues in the past, even if simple math would suggests there is now enough money for folks to be paid, lawyers are nervous, they want their clients paid, knowing ATP managements sound business judgment is questionable as they have made numerous mistakes thus far in this BK.
So now let’s put you in the shoes of a pre-petition unsecure creditor, you are owed a very large amount of money and find yourself at the back of the line. But you are being asked to perform post-petition work on assets the DIP lenders will be claiming. You know they needed this work done during BK, so ask yourself, what do I charge these folks for that work they need done.
Since most of us are from the school, screw me once shame on you, screw me twice shame on me, you now have a second chance for recovery of the pre-petition debt. How, charge more for the work the debtor needs done. ATP revenues from the date of BK filing have been $349,055,132, yes $349 million dollars. Throw into the mix the $300 plus million DIP financing and ATP has had over $600 million dollars available to pay for things, as this accounting is through only 11 months of BK.
This of course has its advantages for these types of pre-petition unsecured creditors, pre-petition debt will be written off and post-petition profit will be sheltered by the write off. When you find out, who the un-secured creditors committee represents and you can find it if you weed through court documents and if these folks happen to be a public company, look at these companies’ balance sheets and see if you won’t find these companies to be more profitable during the time they were performing ATP’s post-petition work. I have looked and it’s a miracle, they have been.
Just me, but I am sure the Dip are happy the post-petition work was done on the assets they claimed, done by the pre-petition unsecure creditor and the pre-petition unsecure creditor was happy for the post-petition work and profit; and of course the lawyers are happy they made $5.35 million dollars helping their pre-petition unsecure creditor clients find a way to make more money post-petition. Who says lawyers aren’t worth every dollar they are paid? Maybe the court was confused about who provided sound business judgment, the unsecured creditors that got paid through their post-petition work, very impressive.
Non-disclosure issues make you think, of course all of these issues create speculation, the last minute deal by the committee of un-secured creditors, which delayed the hearing, and logic would suggest wait a minute; none of the pre-petition unsecured creditors will be paid; what was going on here. And now we find the counsel to the official committee of unsecured creditors presents a refund of fees totaling $564,225. What’s up with that?
Non-disclosure reminds me of a cartoon of a roach infested room. With the lights out, what you see looks in order. Turn on the light and you see ten thousand roach’s running for cover. Why is it so difficult to disclose all the facts?
It’s still not over as yet; it will be interesting to see what happens with the different appeals being heard. How does one justify the action of selling $1,830,342,948 worth of assets ($1.8 billion) and $759,151,434 ($759M) of receivables totaling $2.289 billion dollars for only $669 Million, leaving the company insolvent and passing hundreds of millions of dollars in decommission cost back to folks who have a legal and binding contract that states these issues are ATP’s and not theirs and then add BOEM’s “basically” free pass. And of course a court that has said ATP management has used sound business judgment.
I wonder what the Senators and Representatives, the Governors and Attorney Generals of each of the Gulf States might think. Do you think they might not care either, as long as someone will pay the bill, aren’t all of these folks lawyers too?
Maybe just maybe it is over! Don’t think any lawyer has you covered unless you can write them a check.
Write a letter to the court!
That would be wonderful for you, a buck fifty a share.
Have you read the SEC filings, they are free to read. Go to the SEC web page, do a company search and there you will find the SEC filings KR and crew have filed and you will also see letters from the SEC they sent KR.
Of course the SEC letters were put on the site by the SEC and I’m sure KR would wish they weren’t there.
Just me, but I have identified numerous items that are mistakes in the SEC filings, the SEC letters suggests KR and crew get these reported facts right. It is an interesting read. Of course Avalon does not have any real cash right now so we wait until they do!
If you do run across anything that would suggest Avalon does have some real money in the bank, please let me know.
Has anyone looked at the agenda for the hearing on August the first? “No matters are set for the hearing”. Looks like the judge will have plenty of time to read letters to the court.
Just checked crude prices WTI is at $104.55 and Brent is at $107.45. Thirty day WTI chart shows price up by 9.52 percent, 12 month forecast high, today, is $120 a barrel.
And the best ATP management could do; along with the debtor’s professionals, the dip professionals, and the committee professionals was have an auction. And after the auction, let’s abandon the remaining assets. An unsuccessful auction at that, and they did abandon all of the remaining assets. Who among us would sign up for that sound business judgment?
ATP’s management salaries in June 2013 were; Mr. Tate was paid $28,339, Mr. Reese was paid $24,965, Mr. Morris was paid $25,454 and Mr. Godwin was paid $24,297, all totaling $103,055 in June 2013, yes just June.
The Debtor Professionals were paid $4,171,210 in June 2013; yes $4.1 million and the Dip Lender Professionals were paid $2,690,457; yes $2.69 million and the Committee Professionals were paid $1,826,782, that is $1.826 million dollars paid to the committee professionals. All of the Professionals were paid a total of $8.688 million dollars for the month of June 2013. In all, for the month of June 2013, “professional” management received $8.8 million dollars. Again, just for the month of June 2013.
And now, who among us does not find this obscene; meaning so excessive as to be offensive and repulsive by reason of crass disregard of ethical principles.
All they could come up with was, let’s have an auction, and abandon the remaining assets. But the challenge was not to tell anyone that is the only thing they were going to do.
This professional management group may also find in time, this action to be hilarious, as they raise their glasses for a toast. Why?
Because nobody did anything about it! Write a letter to the court!
From what I have read and heard in the court hearings, via phone listening mode, we are talking total liquidation of the company. It appears this was the plan from day one, as no reorganization effort was funded by the dip. Look at the professional services billing records, hours billed by individual. No one spent any time on a reorganization plan. Non-disclosure issues cloaked this BK, the only way to know what was really going on was to read transcripts and dispositions as bits and pieces were disclosed. When it is all said and done APT will still owed the dip around $200 million against the loan. The dip also claimed the intercompany monies owed ATP, which is around $800 million. If and WHEN these companies are sold, the dip will be paid first. Some have suggested these remaining non debtor assets will be sold for less than market value as were the GOM assets sold.
BP allocated an extra $1.4B for Deepwater Horizon claims yesterday. IF ATP gets paid by BP the legal boys and girls get one third. Bottom line this company maybe dead by then. With ATP still owing another $200 million to the dip they are still first in line to be paid. If by some miracle there is anything left, the second lien holders would be paid next, that is $1.5 billion with interest. Then we have the rest of the unsecured creditors. After everyone gets paid the preferred get paid next and then the common holders! Why the common stock is not sub penny is surprising.
The only winners are the secured and post-petition creditors. That is why it is important that the court hear from everyone even though the court has said they will not be putting humpy-dumpty back together again. I have read, Non-disclosure issues are a big problem in public company BK cases. How can one determine if “best business judgment” has been used when only half the information is being disclosed? And that information being disclosed only favors one party of the BK.
There is too much value here, even the experts are telling me this is a very uncommon case, No one would have thought the 2nd lien folks would walk away with nothing. We are now at a point in this BK where the professional services folks are working to make sure there will be enough money left for them to get paid. You may think the committees are still working for us, my friends they are working for themselves now insuring if there was a deal for them to be paid, there would be enough money left for that purpose. The 15 million wind-down budget should pay these folks and they will go away, on to the next job. The only folks still working this case are those lawyers representing clients who will be left holding the decommissioning obligations. Not only has APT management proven, that oil and gas assets are not worth what they are advertised in SEC filings, They, ATP, are sticking those decommissioning cost back to the parties that they purchase the assets from. Decommission cost estimates are a part of the balance sheet, so ATP asset value has these cost estimates subtracted from the value of the assets along with depreciation. With the price of oil now at $105 and futures selling for $107 the last time I looked. How can anyone say these types of assets have no value? What can be said, ATP management has made the wrong choice; their liquidation path has proven “No Value”. They have wasted tens of millions of dollars in fees. They have spent hundreds of millions on asset improvements, which the dip has claimed and have basically turned those assets off to preserve the value for the dip.
Though disclosure we have learned ATP has acted in the best interest of one party, the dip lenders. We know of one historical figure who chased the money lenders from the temple, but it appears the money lenders are alive and well in the Courts of Texas. Who am I to judge, when that responsibility lays only with one, GOD. But we can all write to the court and question what has been done, what is being done and what is to be done. Make your voice heard.
For those that have hung on and for me, because I have cost averaged my holding I will be even at $.30 a share and at $.25 I am still in the hole. I can guarantee, I will be selling shares when I can get my money back, but will retain 10% of my holdings, just to continue to complain to the SEC.
As things here look dismal, Calvin Coolidge once said, ”Nothing in the world can take the place of Persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts.
Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'Press On' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race."
With that “Press On”; The key of persistence opens all door closed by resistance.
An open letter to the court. Use as you may!
Your honor, As an owner of ATP I do value the courts hard work in this case and with all due respect, the courts comment regarding “not putting humpty dumpty (ATP) back together again” is concerning to me.
To date the “rushed” asset sale to the dip lenders has not been approved and we see continuing improvements in the price of oil which has reached $105 a barrel. “Rigzone” reported recently of the “continued strong permitting environment in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico” and “U.S. Gulf of Mexico drilling activity will continue to rise”. Hardly diminishing market conditions!
ATP’s oil and gas assets continue to increase in value based on accepted industry standards and the courts comment appears to favor only one “creditor” group and the process of liquidation over reorganization, regardless of the increasing value of ATP’s assets and the increased market value of oil, if produced.
As you have found no issues with ATP managements “Sound Business Judgment”, others including myself have major issues with that judgment. As an ATP equity holder, an owner of the company if you will, I have serious concerns regarding my management not fulfilling their fiduciary responsibilities to me as required by state and federal laws and their actions during this case related to “best value of the estate”.
The rushed asset sale failed to deliver results of “Value”. Even with this fact, my management has recommended this path of liquidation and abandonment over reorganization leaving my company insolvent. As I find this very puzzling and I ask why this path!
As disclosure issues appear to be of concern in most bankruptcy courts, we as equity holders, owners of the company, have learned in the court hearings, the dip lenders would not allow the use of funding for any reorganization effort by ATP management including revenues generated by ATP. The court will recall a press release at the start of this case issued by the company in August 2012, in that release ATP management declares;
ATP has obtained a commitment for $617.6 million of debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing from members of its existing senior lender group, which will provide $250 million of additional funds and refinance into the DIP facility the amounts owed to those existing first lien lenders that participate in providing additional funds. Upon approval by the Bankruptcy Court, the new financing and cash generated from ATP’s ongoing operations will be used to support the business and ATP’s efforts to negotiate and implement a reorganization plan acceptable to its stakeholders.
What we have now learned in the court hearings is very concerning. How could a reorganization plan be developed if funding for this activity was never provided for? This important disclosure was never made public to equity holders and if the ad hoc committee members were aware of this condition they were restricted from disclosure as they could tell me “nothing” that wasn’t released by the court. Without this fundamental disclosure; this chapter 11 case has been cloaked as total asset liquidation, liquidation that would be easier achieved through a 363 sale.
One would think “Sound Business Judgment” would include management fulfilling their fiduciary responsibility to the company owners with public disclosure of this condition of the dip loan. We have now learned that liquidation and abandonment was the order of the day, cloaked in nondisclosure and leaving the company insolvent.
It is surprising to me that the court found no issues with ATP managements “Sound Business Judgment” as this analysis should be objective and not subjective. With all due respect, I ask the court; in using Sound Business Judgment “objective analysis”, is there an acceptable level of incompetence, a free pass so to speak, because of management’s choice in not disclosing all of the facts? I ask the court, using sound business judgment, how could one find replacement DIP financing if a reorganization plan was not developed because of funding, as we have learned. Is it sound business judgment to expect lenders to give “anyone” a billion dollars without a plan?
ATP management in court documents state they could not find replacement funding, in fact they could not find any funding except the DIP lenders. How could any business find such funding without a plan? This is hardly sound business judgment when you learn the facts.
Does management get a free pass by the court in their “late” disclosure to the court that the dip lenders would not fund any reorganization effort, therefore no public disclosure that a reorganization plan was not going to be developed? Sound business judgment or deliberate intent cloaked by nondisclosure, but failure to disclose to the owners of the company these facts is not Sound Business Judgment when public statements document; ATP’s efforts to negotiate and implement a reorganization plan acceptable to its stakeholders . This is the total disregard of management’s fiduciary responsibilities to the owners of the company. This court may feel these issues are not the responsibility of the Bankruptcy court, but sir, these issues are related to Sound Business Judgment and one’s objective analysis of that judgment.
ATP management should have disclosed that the DIP loan would not provide funding for any reorganization effort and liquidation of the company’s assets was the only option. Instead ATP’s management reported “Upon approval by the Bankruptcy Court, the new financing and cash generated from ATP’s ongoing operations will be used to support the business and ATP’s efforts to negotiate and implement a reorganization plan acceptable to its stakeholders.”
Objective analysis of sound business judgment has to remove the cloak of nondisclosure. We discover by reading court documents, “after the fact” of managements issues in making sound business decisions. We now understand why Gomez failed, the ownership structure of the Gomez oil and gas production. Of course history shows us ATP’s current management has used questionable business judgment in the past, proven “Bad” business decisions. They have blamed the Gomez failure on the “greed” of the folks who purchased the production interest they in fact sold to them. So now, without the Gomez production everyone who owns an interest in that production has lost. Hundreds of millions of dollars lost in the cloak of nondisclosure. ATP management declares they tried to negotiate a deal with production owners. How could anyone agree to a restructure their ownership, if a reorganization plan was never done? Is it sound business judgment to expect the other production owners just to give back their interest? We have learned in court documents ATP’s ownership in Gomez production was merely 20% as they sold off the balance. Gomez production owners will receive nothing after Gomez has been abandoned; they knew that and still no deal. How does one objectively evaluate sound business judgment without knowledge of all the facts? I would hope that the court has not used subjective analysis, as salesmanship plays a big part in that analysis.
As investors in publicly held companies we trust those folks managing our companies and they are paid quite well for that responsibility. We also trust the courts to insure our rights as “owners” are protected from the “professional managers”. Therefore, in this case, are their actions in the best interest of the estate. As an owner of ATP and with more information being disclosed, I question ATP’s management in using sound business judgment and making business decisions based on that judgment.
How does any competent management explain SEC filings that state the “Gross Value of Assets” at billions of dollars and then history of their “Sound Business Judgment” decisions allow those assets to be liquidated for substantially less? How does any competent management explain SEC filings that show hundreds of millions of dollars of asset value being abandoned? If ATP management has used sound business judgment in there liquidation plan vs. a reorganization plan, they have singlehandedly proven oil and gas assets really are not worth what they are advertised in SEC filings. This in itself defies all objective logic, if one path does not deliver value is it sound business judgment to continue down that path? Or does sound business judgment suggest a different path, a path of reorganization.
Sound business logic would suggest that the 80% ownership interest in the Gomez production (non ATP interest), might have had an interest in signing over that ownership interest to APT if they were to receive an ownership position in the reorganized company. Of course there would need to be a reorganized company for this to happen and as we now know the DIP lenders will not allow funds for this activity, but will allow $15 million to get their purchase of valuable ATP assets closed, as these assets are increasing in value daily.
Sound business judgment, has the court been fooled by the act of “salesmanship” where only half of the story has been told? Or has the court known from the beginning that asset liquidation and the abandonment of assets was going to be the only action ATP’s management was going to pursue and then deemed that course of action from the beginning as sound business judgment?
With current oil prices at $105 a barrel and the increased value of ATP oil and gas assets, it is difficult to understand the logic in the courts comment regarding “not putting humpty dumpty (ATP) back together again. We have two path’s, the one we are traveling has now reached a very deep canyon and we are standing at the edge of the cliff, as the court has said we are not going back, some suggest we just jump off into the canyon. Sound logic would suggest this path doesn’t work and we turn around and travel the second path. Sure it may require more time and energy, but what would be in our collective best interest, to jump or travel the other path. Then we are reminded by those that want us to jump, they never provided funding to travel that other path, so now everyone just line up and jump, as the Dip Lenders have reached the end of their path, with more value than they had four months ago.
In closing I would ask the court to reconsider as sound business judgment is a very objective analysis and disclosing only half the facts to support ones salesmanship skills to the court becomes very subjective. Hopefully the court will not be fooled.
With all due respect, someone has let the cows out of the barn; and as an owner of those cows, I believe it is not too late to get these cows back into the barn. If anyone were to suggest that reorganization plans have not been submitted to the court would be factually wrong, as I have submitted a plan that could see a successful reorganization if one were just to commit the time and energy to make the plan work.
I ask, is it in the best interest of the court or the best interest of the estate to approve the liquidation and abandonment of valuable ATP assets when those assets have been proven to be more value today. I hope the court is not asking us to jump off the cliff, only because of the time and energy that has been put into this case.
Best regards,
Folks may not have noticed the SEC sent KR a letter in February 2013 and again in May 2013, regarding his SEC filings. You will note numerous mistakes in every filing.
You will also note that we had a 300 to one Reverse Split last year leaving 3.2 million shares issued, which KR owned none of them.
You will also note that Recon Technology, Ltd, has purchased 2,800,000 shares of Avalon's common stock. After this investment, Recon will own 32.22% of Avalon's outstanding shares.
If 2.8 million shares equals 32.22% of the outstanding shares, that would mean we now have 8.6 million shares outstanding. At the current market price today at $.17 cents our market cap would grow to $1.4 million.
In December we had 3.2 million outstanding and now we have 8.6 million outstanding. We have had no SEC filings this year to inform us of any increase in the company’s number of outstanding shares. Which means the only real news we have had is from this press release. Outside from this investment by Recon, the company issued an additional 2.6 million shares without disclosure of any kind.
Prior to April 2013 the company, under Nevada law, could only issue 3.33 million shares after the 300 to 1 reverse split. ( a little over 100K of shares that could be issued) The April 2013 filing increased the authorized to 200 million. So legally KR would have to issue those 2.6 million shares after the April filing.
The SEC in a letter asked KR to disclose the promissory notes outstanding, one to a private investor, his name is listed in the SEC filing, loaned $200K in 2011 and this loan could be converted to common stock at $.005 a share.
Another promissory note to an investment group, their name is listed in the SEC filing, loaned $250K in 2011 and this loan could be converted to common stock at $.005 a share.
And the third promissory note for $200K to this same investment group is due in 2015, which does not carry any conversions. Since these notes were written prior to the 300 to 1 reverse split, it will be interesting to see how these notes were paid in stock.
The SEC also asked KR to present his employment agreement which expired on March 31, 2013. Do you think the SEC just might have some concerns, keep those cards and letters going to the SEC.
Also in the Recon press release, KR states; the funds from their investment will be used to complete the workover of 7 wells on the Moody and West Lease, Duval County, Texas and to acquire additional oil and gas producing properties." Again, no public release of this information, do you think insiders might have known things the rest of us didn’t. Why else would this stock go to $.17, maybe another letter to SEC would be in order.
So if you didn’t know about the Moody and West Lease in Duval County Texas, here is what I found!
Bayside Corporation
Loma Novia Field
The Company has interests in two leases in this field in Duval County, Texas, which offset the Government Wells, S. Field leases. One lease has 2 wells, one of which was drilled in 2010. The other well was a re-entry and completion. Another company currently operates the wells and is testing them. Negotiations are underway to acquire all the interests in these wells. The other lease is a new acquisition and has 7 wells. The Company will initiate operations during 2012 to rework and/or re-complete all wells.
DALLAS, TX--(Marketwire -04/18/12)- BAYSIDE CORPORATION exploration, development and production company building oil & gas reserves announces the acquisition of an oil and gas lease covering the Moody and West wells in Duval County, Texas.
Bayside, acting through its wholly owned subsidiary, has acquired 100% of oil and gas leases covering 181 acres and the existing 7 wells situated on the property. The wells have previously produced oil from Jackson Series sands (Government Wells and Loma Novia zones) between depths of 2,200' and 2,400'. The wells were shut-in when the previous operator passed away and have been sitting dormant since. The Company plans to rework and/or re-complete each well and return them to commercial production of oil. The lease may also afford the opportunity to drill additional development wells in the future on the property.
Gordon Johnson, the CEO of Bayside Corporation, stated, "This lease is adjacent to existing oil leases owned by the Company in Duval County and fits nicely into its ongoing rework and re-completion program. Work is planned to commence on the existing wells during the second quarter of this year. As we bring the wells on line and into production and the results become available we will be announcing the results of our efforts. Bayside Corporation is pleased to participate in the future cash flow from these properties."
If you have an interest, you should be able to see what these wells have produced in the past, just log into the Texas Railroad Commission web site and look around.
Having said all of the above, do you think the stock will hold at $.17 or start its historical decline?
I know, nobody cares.
Interesting hearing today ………… Looks like a little more disagreement on the interim sales agreement which was not approved today. It seems the 55 million for first liens will not be enough for “all” to be paid in cash, as an issue with Bluewater’s liens now being throw into the mix and folks have now had a chance to do the calculations on the courtroom deals and guess what, not enough “cash” money. Don’t pay Bluewater in full and see what doesn’t get done on the Dip assets they are purchasing.
The other “big” issue for the final approval; as the court has asked, who are the final “bona fide” buyers of the assets. The agent made the bid, who are these folks that will own the assets, and the dip said “that is being worked out now”. So what lenders what to own GOM assets, with no expertize in that area, and risk another BP disaster? Good deal today, bad deal tomorrow, hurricane season projected to be a real active season. Can you see the Titan falling over, what a miss that would make. Did you notice the Dip want a delayed closing, why would that be?
Just me, some folks concerned today about their interest being protected if and when the dip sell the assets. Liked the dialog today, …… concerns about “30 minutes after closing or 1 year after closing” if the dip folks sell, they wanted protected and they want verbiage to that effect! Why do you think they might be concerned about that? Do you think these folks know things that others don’t. We had no “so called” bidders for the 363 sale, do you think now there are buyers for the assets. Look at the language in the deal, my bet you will find language where we will not be able to sue the dip for anything, “Legal Showmanship”.
Some folks will have a chance to object to the interim agreement after it is finished and some folks will have a chance to object to the final agreement , which would be two more hearings.
The Judge granted the stay today, until the appeal can be heard, he also feels the appeal will favor his decision, but I’m not so sure. I will be writing the appeals court and thought I might start another campaign asking our congressional leaders their intent regarding 363 legislation used in chapter 11 case.
As we know from court documents, it was never the intent of the dip lenders to allow a reorganization process as they would not fund that effort. So the dip should have never agreed to do the dip loan and Chapter 7 would have been the order of the day.
Will also ask them, legislators, about HSE issues and the result of a 363 sale that would leave the BK debtor insolvent, why because the credit bid took all the assets at pennies on the dollar with no money left to protect the public! Wouldn’t it be great to see the public interest in these types of cases paid first! I have all of the legislators keyed up to send emails and letters. Maybe just maybe I can I find one or two of these folks to tell me that wasn’t the intent of the 363 legislation, to have the dip use the Chapter 11 process to claim everything of value. And then we have another Horizon type disaster with assets not protected, leaving the balance of the cost to the public to clean up.
Was also taken back by the dialog of the court concerning, “we are not going to put humpy dumpy back together again”. Folks get real protective of the deals they put together, even when there is a better way.
Sorry about any mistakes in the post, no proof reading, leaving on vacation.
We just had a major development that just might change everything.
Anadarko, Lydia Protopapas, filed a Notice of Appeal on the 25th (#2110) and an emergency motion (#2111). These relate to the Gomez rejection and /or relinquishment. Anadarko thinks they can win the appeal based on these filings. It should be a must read by all.
What is interesting in Section A,16 (of the motion) they are asking for; “maintain status quo as it existed prior to the entry of the abandonment order.”
Also in the hearing last week regarding sale approval, assumptions were made by the court with regards to the ruling based on the Gomez order, if the Gomez order goes away, so do those assumptions.
Lydia Protopapas wins the “legal showmanship” award this week.
Basically all your arguments you presented have been made to the court during this process, what's next?
If others don't agree please tell what I missed?
I too developed a reorganization plan I thought would work. It has the formal structure one would present in a reorganization effort. The plan was 50 some pages. Because I hold no inside information regarding ATP, my plan was developed using public information. I believe my plan would work and offered various means to raise additional funds to support the reorganized company. My plan also had a “cash out” option for the dip. The plan has a means to pay this option.
If I had more time I would have also tried to secure the commitments from third parties to raise the capital the plan allows to be raised. The plan would, after reorganization, have ATP “creditor debt free”. With that, getting funding commitments from third parties would be easier.
All parties to the BK would have gotten paid 100%, and the common holders, equity holders; position would have been reduced to 27%, which was fair.
The plan was sent to the court attached to an objection I made to the 363 sale. That objection has not seen the light of day nor has the plan. I also sent the plan to numerous other parties to the BK and the different committees. I did hear from one committee and they suggested the plan would not get approved by the dip, as they believed the dip wanted the assets.
The bottom line for me, I waited too long believing the debtor would present a plan, I was unaware that the dip refused to allow any funding from the loan to develop a reorganization plan. I learned this during the hearing last Thursday and Friday. As I am not an attorney and really don’t understand the legal “showmanship” of the process. My plan if presented earlier, more than likely would have been “blow off’, but at an earlier point in time. After discussing my plan with one of the committees, I asked why they didn’t submit a plan and was told they considered it but didn’t see much hope getting the dip to approve; again the dip wanted the assets.
I have spent numerous hours of time and energy contacting parties to this BK and for the most part have been blow off and or no response. Listening to the hearing and the negotiations between the “Secure Creditors” as they leverage their different positions to get their clients paid and the unsecure creditors making that last minute deal, which I am still trying to understand how that helps any of us. And the most sickening thought after all of this, the Dip is still owed $200 million when all of this is said and done, which still has first lien priory and in chapter 7 they will get the balance of the estate.
One of the more interesting parts of the hearing was Ms. Protopapas, Anadarko attorney, tried to enter intercompany emails into evidence that were objected as “hear say” and she was stopped. She did have an opportunity to start reading them and before she was stopped, they said “Anadarko “this would be a good opportunity to pick up some of the assets as cheap”. Then the objection and she was stopped. Anadarko had an interest in some assets, than backed out; the debtor claims. It appears to me they “Anadarko” had a problem with the nondisclosure agreement as the hearing disclosed. Regardless, they can still buy the assets they had an interest in, Telemark and Clipper, but from the dip lenders, they now have a baseline of value for them, which would be cheaper than there bid. Does a bunch of lenders really want to be deepwater oil and gas operators in the GOM? Legal “showmanship”; my guess Anadarko will end up with these assets in a private transaction that will not disclosure the value purchased. But will be able to be found in Anadarko financials someday.
The ATP IP should also bring in a windfall for the dip, they bid $100K in value there, and third parties now understand the baseline value. IP is a very valuable asset, “Bluewater” bid $10K, the dip $100K, makes it look like no value. Maybe “Bluewater” will still have an interest, there are a lot more techy companies out there that might have an interest in this award winning IP, yes award winning. The dip should see a windfall from these assets, as a value baseline has been established also.
Money, money, money, get it all if you can; as that was the dips plan from day one. And then we found out in the hearing that two parties now have an interest in shallow water properties that ATP has now retained. These were properties that ATP had partners in. Of course ATP will be giving this value to the partner parties basically free as they will assume all risk and expenses going forward. Why would a partner bid on these properties when they can get them for free, later.
This leads me to other questions I have for our congressional leaders; was the intent of 363 legislation to get the most value or least value from assets? The value of ATP assets are clearly formed in SEC filing, anyone suggesting this value was not present in ATP’s assets would have to explain, as investors make investment decisions based on these evaluations. Is this evaluation process flawed and oil and gas assets are not worth as they are advertised in SEC filing. Can it really be that an oil and gas asset producing $50 million a month in revenue and proven reserves in excess of billions of dollars be worth only pennies on the dollar. Or has congress allowed lenders to claim these assets through legal “showmanship”.
Others made some great points in the hearing with their legal “showmanship” that produced nothing, Mr. Lee, the equity committee, pounded Mr. Latimer, that’s when I heard; after all said and done the dip will still be owed $200 million. He also got out of Mr. Latimer that we can expect to see other ATP assets file for protection. The only plan that was “ever developed” and approved for funding was the 363 sale. Mr. Lee gave it a good effort but when a deal is done, it’s basically done, as the unsecure creditors removed there objection, as I thought that was an excellent display of legal “showmanship”. Too bad those points were not made, but again it didn’t matter as the deal was done and the unsecured creditors think they won something for their clients, but not sure what that might be.
Mr. Latimer was asked if the dip had a lien on the BP claim and his answer was yes. Mr. Latimer was also asked what value the debtor put on the claim and he didn’t really know but thought very little. There were other assets discussed about value and Mr. Latimer didn’t have an assessed value for those assets either. One would think this would have been a red flag, the judge did say he thought the sales process was very professionally done, even when Mr. Latimer said the UK and MED assets when offered by ATP management and not offered by Jefferies.
What will be interesting as I am told by the court; “He (the judge) granted the motion in part and denied it in part. I don't know the specifics, the court told me, but an order will be entered at a later date with the details.”
What part was granted and what part was denied, I did hear him say( the judge) he was going to deny the ATP Med assets at the end of the hearing. If this is the only thing he denies, I’m not sure if this will be a deal breaker for the dip. If he denies other negotiated items this may turn out to be very interesting, as the dip may claim additional assets like the BP claims, again.
It may be unrealistic to think this deal will fall apart, as a lot of work has gone into it. But stranger things have happened. I can tell you there are a few of us on this board that have worked privately together to try and get the court “not to approve” this sale.
Our legal “showmanship” was lacking, as I did ask my wife if I could use $100K of our money for this effort. She looked at me and said; are you out of your mind! I’m tired and I am going on vacation.
Here is a section that everyone needs to write the court about;
Section 363(m), however, will not shield the buyer from liability if he did not act in good faith. While section 363(m) requires a successful bidder to purchase the property in "good faith," the Bankruptcy Code does not further define that term. Most courts have turned to the traditional "equitable principles" and found that the phrase "good faith" encompasses one who is a good faith purchaser, i.e., a purchaser who "buys property, for value, without knowledge of adverse claims." In re Mark Bell Furniture Warehouse, Inc., 992 F.2d 7, 8 (1st Cir. 1993); see also Kabro Assoc. of West Islip, LLC v. Colony Hill Assoc. (In re Colony Hill Assoc.), 111 F.3d 269, (2d Cir. 1997) (citing Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc. v. Nat'l Farmers' Org., Inc. (In re Abbotts Dairies of Penn., Inc.), 788 F.2d 143, 147 (3d Cir. 1986)).
The purpose of the good faith requirement of section 363(m) is to maximize the purchase price of the property sold. In re Gucci, 126 F.3d at 387. "[W]ithout this assurance of finality, purchasers could demand a large discount for investing in a property that is laden with the risk of endless litigation as to who has rights to estate property." Id.
Courts have noted that the section 363(m) good faith requirement is specifically designed to maximize the purchase price of the property sold. Id.22 In a case under section 363(m), the burden of proof associated with good faith is on the party arguing for good faith. Given that section 363(m) is often raised in the appellate context, the party with the burden of proof is usually the party seeking dismissal of the appeal.
A purchaser's good faith may not be assumed. Most circuit courts require that the finding of good faith be made at the time of the sale. A purchaser who "buys property, for value, without knowledge of adverse claims".
Without knowledge of adverse claims, a property that is laden with the risk of endless litigation, as was the ATP assets. How could the Dip Lenders credit bid be made in “Good Faith”, as most buyers were driven away by property laden with risk and possible endless litigation.
Therefore the dip lenders received a very large discount for what they purchased. Good faith I think not.
This case was added to the suit against BP by court order on May 20th, document 10194. This case is ongoing, stage two will start in September.
Stage One post trial briefs were to be filed last Friday. Judge Barbier will issue a ruling prior to the start of stage two regarding gross negligence or willful misconduct.
After sale approval, the DIP will still be owed $200 million, they will also get this “BP Claim Asset” in Chapter 7, along with everything else of value.
This is called “Justice”, because, “just us” got screwed.
ATP Oil & Gas Corporation v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc. et al
Plaintiff: ATP Oil & Gas Corporation
Defendants: BP Exploration & Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, BP P.L.C., Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Sperry Drilling Services, Transocean Holdings, LLC, Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc., Transocean Deepwater, Inc., Transocean, Ltd. and Triton Asset Leasing GMBH
Case Number: 2:2013cv01962
Filed: April 20, 2013
Court: Louisiana Eastern District Court
Office: New Orleans Office
County: Out of State
Presiding Judge: Carl Barbier
Referring Judge: Sally Shushan
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Environmental Matters
Cause: 33:2701 - Oil Pollution Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Listen off and on today, it doesn't look good. Unsecured made a deal this AM. After that everything went down hill from there.
Tomorrow AM should know what the deal details, but funds will not be earmarked for unsecured.
Everyone that agreed today will get paid something.
Just me but I think the Judge has already decided to agree to the sale.
Romang …… hopefully you received the package via email. Did you notice the other addressees? Did have a nice conversation with one addressee yesterday, my guess this will not help much, but you never know. All I know is, I tried!
Here we are two days before the hearing to approve the 363 Asset sell to the dip lenders; court document 2029 Notice of Filing Revised Asset Purchase Agreement.
Looks like they took out the BP claim, maybe some letters worked.
Also looks like they want the Gomez subsurface structures now; section 2.02 (c) Christmas Tree, now it appears to have value.
In section 5.15 it looks like they are selling assets before they purchased them, and we thought nobody wanted them.
Reread section 4.02 (i) Representations and Warranties; it appears the Dip Lenders need a loan, which they don’t have now, in addition to their credit bid to purchase the assets. This looks like an “Objection” everyone needs to send to the court.
Read 4.02 (i) how does one buy something with the statement; “Buyer does not have any reason to believe that financing required to consummate the transaction contemplated by this agreement will not be available to the buyer on a timely basis to consummate the transaction contemplated by this agreement”.
Do you think that would work for you or me? Different rules for different folks????
Section 5.13 Financing Cooperation; and they need help from the debtor to secure financing.
And the icing on the “cake”; it appears they don’t need to produce any cash for 60 days after closing. What a deal. Section 7.02 (e) …… were these terms in the bidding procedures for other parties?
We need more letters to the court!!!!!
Romang,
Listened to Yesterday’s hearing, morning only. Checked a few times during the afternoon heard nothing, what happened in the afternoon?
I have been working nonstop on my reorganization plan, at first thought “here are some ideas” you boys and girls put it together; send it out within a few days. Then decided to develop the total plan based on the public information I have. I have about 40 hours into the plan; it is now at 59 pages and 28,270 words. I would say the plan is 97% completed with all section draft’s completed some sections are finalized. I have one exhibit completed and some that state TBC upon acceptance. Was hoping to finalize it last night but ran out of time. I will have it completed tonight or early tomorrow morning.
Once completed, I will mail the plan to the court hopefully tomorrow and send a copy via email to the different committees. I may wait until Monday to mail the plan, I have a friend who has offered to provide free limited advice. He is and it is me who is saying this not him, a “big shot” bankruptcy lawyer with one of the “big ass” law firms in New Orleans. I know four or five guys there as our company does business with them.
Even though I have committed many hours to the development of plan, I think more than likely, to be blow off by the parties. I believe my plan will work for everyone’s benefit because everyone will get paid 100%, except the common shareholders, but they will receive a substantial share. There have been many times when I have thought this won’t work and started over. I have asked myself during development, ok, what are the issues with this idea; and have addressed 99% of them. The plan offers multiple solutions for key areas of possible concerns.
I have been in to many meetings where personal interests get in the way of getting things done, as an outside party to the process, there is some hope but very little of getting the plan presented for consideration. It won’t be because the plan doesn’t look professional. But because no one within the process cares about what any of us think.
I look forward to hearing about the meeting.
Romang,
Sorry about last week, was tied up in meetings all afternoon and missed free time. It looks like I missed free time again today.
I did listen to the hearing last week, the Judge did say he had received twenty plus letters objecting to the 363 sale approval. Seems letters are helping. He did tell the dip lenders they didn’t have a “done deal” . The judge did say … why approve the sale when the debtor is showing some profitability, as if he was asking the debtor to offer something of a reorganization plan.
There was a discussion regarding any additional cash to be paid by the dip lenders would be paid as directed by the court and not ear marked by the Dip Lenders. The dip lenders have no say in the use of the proceeds from the 363 sale. They didn’t seem too happy about that.
An interesting observation, I stayed on the line after the hearing and listened, the mic was still on. The court was adjourned and folks moved out of the court room, but not all. Some stayed round 10 to 15 minutes. This has happened twice when I listened in. You might want to hang on for a few minutes, I think the folks that stayed to talk thought the mic was off. Maybe I shouldn’t have said this here but next week everyone should be listening and they might want to hang on for a few minutes.
The letters are working and everyone should send a letter to the court with your concerns, it will only take a few minutes of your time.
My first communication to the court was a letter. I then developed an objection to the 363 sale approval and mailed it; believe that was one of the twenty objections the judge received. I also wrote a motion, and mailed it to the court. None have been published publicly thus far.
I shared my letter, objection and motion with the different committee legal representatives, excluding the dip lenders. I received an email from the equity committee in response, they basically blew me off.
I also received an email from the creditor’s committee. He asked for my phone number and he called me. We had a nice conversation. He told me I made some good points in my objection; and my motion would be better served if my personal attorney were to advise me.
I asked why would the equity committee just blow me off and sent a copy of the “blow off” email to him. I had about twenty questions but he didn’t offer any hope if the court approves the 363 sale. We spent some time discussing reorganization, but the debtor needs to show they can make a profit to have any plan at all. I think with the increased in revenues we might be getting close, but the debtor looks like they are on a path to liquidation over reorganization. We spoke on this and I told him I am not expecting the debtor to develop a plan. Again no help, in if there is a plan underway he didn’t speak of one. I did speak of my concerns about the 10% management ownership incentive in the Dip Lenders “Holdco Company”. Again no information there! He was very nice but I really didn’t learn anything new. He invited me to email or call him with any questions and concerns. I was happy someone was concerned.
Last week I sent an additional letter and have another ready to be mailed today. I am developing a Strategic Reorganization Plan for the courts consideration and will have it mailed Monday.
An interesting development in the BP case and haven’t seen much about it anywhere. Did see a local headline that brought it to my attention and wanted to share! New and related claims are being consolidated into the ongoing trial as the district court in New Orleans has ordered on May 20th, 2013. This is a big deal for the ATP claim. You can go to the district court web page and read the order.(see link below)
This was a known possibility months ago but it has now been ordered by the court. This trial in New Orleans is scheduled for September 2013. This process should not take years to settle and with the possibility of a settlement before September 2013, as Judge Barbier is close to issuing a ruling on the first phase of the trial and the percentage of liability to be assigned to BP or its partners; whether any of the companies should be found to have committed gross negligence or willful misconduct, which could result in a four-fold increase in Clean Water Act fines.
The $3.1 billion dollar ATP claim could represent $12.4 billion dollars. Do you think this might have something to do with the rush 363 sale by the dip lenders?
I understand some think ATP will never see a dime but I think everyone will be surprised with the award ATP will receive. There will be one at least one claim that will be the “highest paid claim”, ATP or if the credit bid is approved by the court before an award or settlement, the Dip Lenders will receive the highest paid claim. If ATP’s claim grows four-fold that claim could be worth $12.4 billion, do you thank the Dip lenders want the 363 sale approved ASAP.
Blast away at me if you must, but history shows us other parties have been paid, those payments to date are $20 plus billion dollars, history also shows us that claim settlements have also been made. Why would one think ATP’s claim for $3.1 billion wouldn’t be paid and or settled, with companies that have a means to make such payments? One company will be awarded the “highest in damages” and based on information we know today that company should and could be ATP. So blast away, a $3.1 billion payout looks pretty good against a $12.4 billion exposure, and the cases have been consolidated into the ongoing trial, by court order.
The Texas court needs to hear from everyone, flood the court with objections to the 363 sale and the relinquishment and abandonment of the Gomez assets. Tell everyone to write, your mother, your dad, your brothers and sisters, your kids, their kids. Even write a letter for your dog or cat.
If you need a link to the district court in New Orleans for the consolidation order, here it is. May 20th 2013.
http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/OilSpill/OilSpill.htm
Tomorrow is free private message …… I will send you a PM ……
She got most of it right in her reporting!
Had a chance to listen to the hearing, did not sound like a done deal for the dip lenders.
From the agenda,
c. Status: Status conference; the Debtor has continued the evidentiary hearing on its Sale Motion to Tuesday, June 4, 2013 at 9:30 a.m.
Read the agenda for the 23rd, maybe a new twist!
Maybe you should sent a note to the judge!!!!!!!
Before it is to late!!!!!!
Romang ……. Thanks for your post and your determination to look for opportunities to offer objections to the court. The voice of thousands is a stronger voice than one, when a few are trying to rob you blind.
Speaking of those who want to rob you blind, Baron Rothschild, of the famous banking dynasty, said the best time to buy was "when there is blood in the streets." I don’t think he was referring to the common investor.
In our case few have $800 million lying around to trump a credit bid. And when you look at the list of the dip lenders they don’t have $800 million to act independently. The forced sale of assets was a classic move by the dip lenders. Even the dip financing paid to upgrade the assets they claimed. But the display of greed by the dip lenders is second to none. They even want our dreams of a victory in court against BP.
Can you imagine, after the dip lenders collect $9 billion in the suit against BP and they are sitting around celebrating the victory of their successful credit bid and windfall from the BP suit, one guy says to the others "can you believe only two guy's objected to us stealing the company"; and those two guys were you and me.
So did I, picked up 80 at $15.40, cost averaged at $36.30 now. If it keeps going down I may just double up.
I hope you are right, why are they so quiet?
“main objectors are the unsecured creditors commitie and they are the only one that have an extension to file an objection”
So that group basically has the power for the rest of us if we discover material information that might change the decision on accepting the dip lenders bid.
My personal opinion, the ad hoc committee has left the building. Why, because the early bond big money has cashed out by now; taking the “big time” lawyers with them. The dip lenders know this and we see the rush to sell off the ATP assets for less than $700M before anyone wakes up. It would be interesting to see, after cashing out, if that big bond money switched sides to the dip. Thank you Chevy!!!
If the ATP debt was reduced by $1.125 billion dollars would that make a difference? You bet it would. So our bonds have a face value of $1,000. As a current bond holder would you take today $250 face value? My bet, 99% of the current holders would jump at that offer, why because the high priced early big money is out. You can track the bonds sales, you can count on the dip lenders are also tracking this information. That’s why the rush to sell the assets. Where has the ad hoc committee been these last 5 months??? Have we seen any objections on “anything” from the committee?
With the number of bonds that have traded the last six month, I would bet the average cost per $1000 of the current bonds holders is less than $100.
That means 99% of the current bond holders might jump at a $250 face value sale. Which means ATP’s debt would be reduced by $1.125 billion. Has anyone from the debtor side made an offer to any of the bond holders?
You do the math, reduce the debt by $1,125 billion do you thank financing could be found to replace the dip financing, you bet it could.
Ask yourself, why didn’t management address the biggest debt first? That would be the $1.5 billion in bonds? Don’t you think finding funding would be easier if that debt number was reduced? After the fact; Oh well, we tried to find funding but we couldn’t. Now we know the dip has allowed a 10% interest being given to management, based on the terms sheet. With T. Paul out, 10% is more than the current management group currently owns. So let’s do nothing, to busy getting the clipper production on line and addressing the courts requirement to offer the gulf assets which included everything. This is the same group that gave themselves the bonuses at year end.
Remember the movie “Wizard of OZ”; classic line in the movie, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”. It’s like speeding, no foul, no harm until you get caught, but officer I didn’t know the speed limit was 55. We didn’t know!!
So what’s next, someone tell me I am wrong here, tell me management is doing everything they can do to preserve our investments. Tell me I am wrong, the ad hoc committee is looking after the interest of us bond holders.
Just me, management doesn’t care about those who purchased common stock at $.15 a share, management doesn’t care about those who purchased the preferred shares at $1.00 a share. And management doesn’t believe they can make deal with current bond holders who purchased bonds at $50.00 per thousand in value.
And the biggest “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” the “change in control” (ownership) requirements the court has put into place, driven of course by management; story line “save the tax credits”. The truth, hell with the tax credits, maintain control of the company until the dip lenders have all of the assets.
Same thing with the common shares value, something is creating demand for the stock, therefore higher market price. When the judge approves the assets sale, those driving the demand will be gone; it will be too late for anyone who has wised up to fight for control, arguing incompetence of management.
Someone tell me why management has not tried to make a deal to reduce the debt by $1.125 billion dollars.
Romang .... seriously I need some help here, as the Ad Hoc group left the building?
There has to be a problem somewhere, don’t recall seeing anything from the Ad Hoc group since January 2013.
The Bank of Mellon Trust Company is the trustee, but have this bad feeling no one is representing the bond holders interest since January.
Please someone tell me I am wrong and lead me to some court filings by this group post January 2013.[/I]
BuckeyeOil, seriously I need some help here. Has the Ad hoc group left the building?
There has to be a problem somewhere, don’t recall seeing anything from the Ad Hoc group since January 2013.
The Bank of Mellon Trust Company is the trustee, but have this bad feeling no one is representing the bond holders interest since January.
Please someone tell me I am wrong and lead me to some court filings by this group post January 2013. [/I]
There has to be a problem somewhere, don’t recall seeing anything from the Ad Hoc group since January 2013.
The Bank of Mellon Trust Company is the trustee, but have this bad feeling no one is representing the bond holders interest since January.
Please someone tell me I am wrong and lead me to some court filings by this group post January 2013.
Chevy .... I don’t know if this will help but look at court document 1489-1, you have to go back to page 78 and 79 of 90.
It lists the third DIP Amendment Lenders of the $117M. The court should have a public copy of signers of the Dip Credit Agreements.
Romang ..... thanks for the update. I have been in meetings most of the day, a few questions if you don’t mind.
The judge did not approved the sale today, is that correct? And he has asked for additional information by the parties before he will rule on the sale approval, is that correct?
Did you hear if the ATP board approved the sale? During the hearing today did the ATP management seem too support the sale?
Was there any objections of the sale, voiced today by anyone?
Yes it is!!!!
So true, this doesn’t look good.
The epiphany of greed, sorry boys and girls, if the board approves the sale; shame on them, if the court allows the sale; shame on them, and all those professionals working the BK for the debtor; collecting tens of millions, shame on them. It also appears these same folk’s working for the debtor will get paid with the $45M set aside; you have to give a bone to these professionals, who knows when you might need them.
I have spent a few hours reviewing the court “sales” document and will spend more time tomorrow, but it looks like the dip lenders want everything, they even want the BP claim. Looks like we get to keep ATP UK and ATP Israel, but they want the intercompany receivables. That’s more than the dip loan. So we can count on them suing us for those dollars.
If the sale is approved there will be nothing left.
With nothing left for the second lien holders, the preferred and the common, maybe it might be time to join forces with everyone else left out. With everyone, all creditors, who were left out taking an equity position in the reorganized company all the debt goes away, except for the dip.
Who thinks the company can’t get funding then, to pay off the dip?
It will be interesting to see what the board does, what the court does and if we might now see a reorganization plan from management. The shock of getting nothing is a real motivator.
It’s hard to stay focus with what appears to be bad news, but I am not selling any of my positions, bonds and preferred, this week anyway. I am waiting to see what the board will do, the court will do and the different committees might do.
If the bottom falls out while I am waiting, I might buy a few more bonds and preferred shares.
stoxjock ..... Is this the scale you are referring to?
.5c = 20%
1.0c = 25%
1.5c = 30%
2.0c = 35%
2.5c = 38%
3.0c = 40%
3.5c = 43%
4.0c = 45%
4.5c = 48%
5.0c = 50%
No disrespect here, but there seems just a little more going on behind the scenes; true “A reorganization would require a plan to reorganize...and so far we have had no such plan put forth by anyone”.
However we do have the Mayer Brown “bill” filing #1652. Just for fun bring this document up and do a “keyword search”. There does appear to be a lot of hours billed regarding the Plan of Reorganization. (POR)
I searched POR, reorganization and the word strategy in the document.
The following are a few of my favorites;
01/03/13 Reimer, Craig E. 0.60
Email (0.20) and calls (0.40) with tax counsel (S. O'Brien and J. Hunt) regarding preservation of NOL, court procedures for obtaining commitments by substantial equity holders and plan of reorganization options.
02/22/13 Hyman, Frederick D. 4.80
Review draft term sheets for precedent (0.70). Continue working on preliminary draft of term sheet for plan, including, terms of preferred shares and warrants
(4.10).
And a few more billings addressing reorganization; POR
12/12/12 Reimer, Craig E. 1.10
Prepare for and participate in conference call with Opportune and ATP to go over issues regarding analysis of M&M liens and process for addressing same in connection with facilitating sale and/or plan of reorganization in chapter 11 case (0.80), follow-up discussions with C. Walsh regarding excel spreadsheets to prepare and legal research to perform relating to such lien analysis (0.30).
12/20/12 Lotito, Michael F. 1.70
Participated in conference call with ATP and advisors regarding plan formulation (0.60); conference with H. Beltzer, F. Hyman, and C. Walsh regarding same (0.30); researched precedent for disclosure statement, plan of reorganization,and confirmation order (0.80).
01/04/13 Toland, Rue K. 2.10
Research and analyze rights offerings in conjunction with plans of
reorganization.
01/30/13 Lotito, Michael F. 0.20
Attention to draft plan of reorganization term sheet with F. Hyman.
02/04/13 Beltzer, Howard S. 0.10
Conference with R. Hyman regarding POR issues.
02/06/13 Gray, Robert F. 2.10
Telephone conference with MB lawyers to develop POR strategy for case (1.40). Conference with Charles regarding alternative structures and interests of constituents (DIP, Seconds and UCC) in light of most recent pronouncements by Judge Isger regarding UCC (0.70).
02/08/13 Kelley, Charles S. 2.10
Meeting with Al and Keith and Bob to discuss plan concepts and strategy towards plan structure.
02/13/13 Kelley, Charles S. 1.00
Internal call with B. Trust to discuss POR planning and strategizing.
02/14/13 Beltzer, Howard S. 0.10
Read correspondence from T. Janne regarding POR concepts.
02/22/13 Beltzer, Howard S. 0.10
Correspondence with R. Hyman, T. Janne, C. Kelley regarding POR outline.
02/25/13 Beltzer, Howard S. 2.10
Read draft plan outline (0.70). Related conferences with R. Hyman (0.30). Telephone conference with R. Silverman (with R. Hyman) (0.20). Conference call with MB/Jefferies/Opportune team (0.90).
02/25/13 Gray, Robert F. 1.70
Review Preliminary Term Sheet for Chapter 11 Plan (1.00). Attend telephone conferences with Jefferies and MB re same (0.70).
02/25/13 Hyman, Frederick D. 3.30
Edits to plan term sheet (1.00). Call with plan sub group regarding plan structure (0.90). Edits to term sheet (1.00). Follow-up with R. Silverman regarding plan alternatives (0.20). Call with Bingham regarding same (0.20).
02/25/13 Lotito, Michael F. 1.20
Prepared for and participated in conference call with advisors to debt regarding plan formulation.
02/26/13 Beltzer, Howard S. 0.50
Conference with R. Hyman (0.20). Telephone conference with C. Kelley regarding issues regarding POR outline (0.10). Attention thereto (0.20).
02/26/13 Hyman, Frederick D. 2.00
Work on plan term sheet.
02/26/13 Lotito, Michael F. 0.50
Conference with F. Hyman on plan formulation.
02/27/13 Beltzer, Howard S. 0.10
Conference with M. Lotito regarding credit bid issues.
02/27/13 Hyman, Frederick D. 1.90
Work on edits/updates to plan term sheet (1.50). Call with Jefferies regarding credit bidding issues (0.40).
02/28/13 Kelley, Charles S. 2.30
Meeting with J. Latimer, J. Homier and A. Reese to discuss strategy on plan structure and related items.
Plan for the worse and hope for the best! When it’s all said and done the reorganized company may only have one asset left.
From the Mayer Brown filing #1652
E. Asset Analysis and Recovery
22. During the Second Interim Period, Mayer Brown assisted the Debtor with evaluating and prosecuting its claims against British Petroleum (“BP”) arising out of the Deepwater Horizon spill and its aftermath. These claims represent potentially significant assets of the estate. Mayer Brown worked with Motley Rice LLC and Fayard & Honeycutt APC4 to submit a claim on behalf of the Debtor to BP for over $3 billion. Mayer Brown’s services were vital to preserving these potentially significant claims for the benefit of the Debtor and creditors alike.
Don’t believe they can sell this claim to others, those holding shares in the reorganized company will be the ones benefiting from this “possible” asset, if want to call this action an asset as stated in E. 22.