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.
Smiley - Since Mike U has been spending at $800K per quarter, the $1.9M left at the end of the 2ndQt will not go too far. Your Mr X needs to be quick if there is going to be anything left.
Then Go Mosh - you ask that we call Mike U and urge acceptance of the $125K. I wonder why you are asking? Are you associated in any way with the bid and the arbitration goat rope? If you are - there is your answer. With all the run ins you have had over the years with Mikey, JPM and PXD, I really doubt that they are in any mood to deal with you any more. It does not look like the trust owns any of the properties - as the judge approved finalized settlement said PXD could do what ever they wanted with them. BA39 went back to the MMS and the Nimitz ORR is certainly not with the Trust any longer. So, the person or group behind the arbitration wants the Trust to sell something that it does not own nor has possession of? Why would the Trust, JPM and PXD agree to binding arbitration? At best its probably non-binding arbitration, so the arbitrator says sell it - and the arbitrator's opinion is worth how much against a judge approved finalized non appealable settlement?
The package of BA39 & Nimitz could not even bring a dollar at public auction, so JPM and PXD are home free. This arbitration goat rope, just gives JPM and PXD one last excuse to screw over the Trust and the unitholders. If anything does come of it, JPM and PXD will just burn what is left along with the $125K just in case someone else comes along with some additional legal challenge.
All this says, is that JPM will be burning through the $1.9M pretty fast - telling the arbitrator that it can't sell what it does not own. In the off chance the Trust does have to try to buy it back, all the seller has to do is demand an amount beyond the Trust's bank balance. Its a no win situation, and the unitholders are being screwed out of their final distribution.
So, go go, what say you - are you involved?
So where are the court filings naming who is demanding arbitration?
along with.....
What trust asset are they offering $125K for?
What do they want to arbitrate?
What is the time line for the arbitration?
When will this arbitration be concluded?
Where are the postings of the arbitration documents?
Where are the court filings?
If there is one arbitration will there be more?
Will there be other legal filings - holding up the distribution?
If arbitration is denied or the outcome is not liked by whom ever, will there be yet more legal demands - running out the Trusts assets?
Unitholders not interested parties? Who is spending the rest of my distribution for me? I would kind of like to know?
In the past folks have been Johnny on the spot with the filings and additional information, so where it the information this time.
So who might this former PXD employee be?
Is it a former PXD employee for that matter?
It would be certainly be interesting to know?
PXD offered the BA39 lease up for auction and could not even get a bid of $1. Since it contained working interest only qualified parties holding a MMS permit were able to bit. Since the Nimitz ORR was attached to the lease, it was a package deal. The settlement provided PXD to dispose of anything in anyway if it did not sell. Was the Nimitz ORR returned to the MMS too? Who hold it now?
JPM said that BA39 was returned to the MMS - so does that mean all parts of BA39? West Delta's ORR was sold off for $700K. So where did the assets go? An accounting from PXD and JPM?
But that still leaves the question of who is / are the parties demanding the arbitration?
So Go Mosh, you are all knowledgeable about all things MOSH - what say you?
The Trust assets are now $1.9M down from $2.9M last quarter. First quarter burn was $800K and now the second quarter burn was $1M, up $200K.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/100816/mosh.ob10-q.html
We were suppose to have a distribution, however that has been held up due to the arbitration by some individual or group, offering $125K. It looks like what ever would have been gained by a sale, has been offset by increased expenses, probably from the costs of arbitration. The final distribution was suppose to be last month. So every day costs the Trust, and thus the unitholders additional funds.
In the the BA39 lease was returned to the MMS, which may have included the 2.5% over riding royalty on the adjacent leaseholds with the Nimitz well, that can be the only possible asset that may be the target of the arbitration.
So who is the individual or group pushing the arbitration?
What trust asset are they offering $125K for?
What do they want to arbitrate?
What is the time line?
When will this arbitration be concluded?
Where are the postings of the arbitration documents?
Where are the court filings?
If there is one arbitration will there be more?
Will there be other legal filings - holding up the distribution?
In post #27242 Go Mosh wrote...
"If somebody here has a mad on, it shouldn't be at the guys who put in the bid, which if accepted, would have given a holder of a million mosh units an extra $1,700. We should all be ringing MU's phone off the wall, telling him to just make pxd accept the bid, wire the money to jpm, and make the final disbursement, and this will all be over forever."
Well it looks like the guys who put in the $125K bid probably cost the unitholders at least the $125K and maybe as much as $200K or so - so far. That certainly appears to be a net loss. Also the additional burn rate for now the third quarter.
So Go Mosh - you usually have all the answers - do you have any answers? Court filings, case numbers, etc.?????
This demand for arbitration by an individual or a group is just going to enable JPM to burn through the remaining funds within the Trust. The offer of $125K will add nothing to the Trust in that JPM has already expended at least that amount in legal fees from the Trust.
Plus, the arbitration demand does NOTHING for the unitholders. The only folks that could benefit would be the ones demanding the arbitration. This will only cost the unitholders the remaining funds being held by the Trust.
Regardless of the outcome, JPM will just tack on at least an additional 6 months to ensure that there are no more "demands" or legal actions. That will surely zero the Trust's accounts.
This is a loose loose loose situation for the unitholders.
The Judge approved the settlement - where by if the properties do not sell, PXD can do what ever they want, and apparently they did. If this was such an egregious problem, it should have been brought up at that time.
Since I am writing, the various listed rumors of the Judge and the various attorneys, if you have some links or documents, then post them. Just indicating that there are problems or actions are just so many worthless rumors. Publish or be quiet.
In the March Quarterly report the Trust had $2,960,132, in the bank. The reported burn rate was $807,549 for the first quarter. So at that rate, the bank account should last JPM and its lawyers another 3.6 quarters. That should just about zero the trust by the end of the year.
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/100517/mosh.ob10-q.html
You guys really know how to spend the unitholder's funds.
balls of FE
Please read ...
http://www.texasprobate.com/articles/trustlit.htm
When you are done, then maybe you can answer your own question.
kiwisteve - you have a private message...
An Important Link to Read!!
I came across this link about 2 years ago, bookmarked it and then my PC dumped all my bookmarks, so I lost it. I just ran across it again doing some research. It is a link (about 70 pages) that examines Texas Trust Law as it applies to the Trustee in lawsuits. I think all of you will find it interesting reading.
http://www.texasprobate.com/articles/trustlit.htm
Would it be possible to post this on the iBox list?
OK, I'll come out of hibernation to answer this - there is only a week left to trial.
MOSH Holdings LLC, owns 10.2% of Mesa Offshore Trust (MOSH) and are the Plaintiffs. They filed indicating that they own over 5% of the units several years ago. If you go back into the 8Ks and 10Ks you will see that JPM as Trustee indicated that they could sue given that they funded the lawsuit at their own expense - which they have done. Thus, they have been paying their own freight, as opposed to JPM who has been charging the trust for their legal bills.
To my knowledge they have not sold any units. If they had, they would have to file indicating that their ownership percentage had changed.
OTC is correct that Mesa Offshore Trust is a TRUST, and thus has no officers and no employees, only a Trustee (JPM) and a Managing General Partner (Pioneer), along with us - the lowly beneficial unitholders.
Hopefully that clarifies things. You should all do some due diligence on your own, as all of this is fully covered in the materials linked to in the iBOX, since this is the basis of the lawsuit and has been a topic and question asked and answered countless of times here....
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.....
Unfortunately here in Phoenix, there is no snow (the white stuff) to cushion Santa's landing. So if a somewhat dusty Santa shows up in your neck of the woods, you know where he has been....
To all of MOSH - a wonderful, happy and VERY prosperous new year!!!!
The West Delta Cash Flow -
The posts on the Managing General Partner, Trustee, Auditors and the cash flow for WD have been good, however in my opinion missing the target. What is wanted is transparency, and what were getting is translucency. What do I mean by this....
We have read on the board that as of the last 8K, 10K and 10Q (and I have not had a chance to read through everything as of yet), that finally the reports (April 8K) show "as of April 22, 2008 approximately $593,000" that was applied to the $1.4M P&A charges. What is being said is that it certainly appears that PXD may have received more than that for the period stated. What is not being provided is how much was actually received and how much was applied to various expenses (PXD's legal - which was reported a while back to be about $3M).
The discussion about what pipeline vendor, the transportation charges and the like do not matter one bit, since they are upstream from PXD and were deducted prior to the funds paid to PXD. Why, because for this discussion all that matters are the amounts that PXD received in the checks.
Bottom line, is that the 8K has a lot of numbers and dates, and most readers certainly comes away with the feeling that it appears to tell the whole story. They have specific dates, exact amounts while indicating what it was applied to - its gotta be correct. It probably is accurate, as far as it goes. However, does it cover everything - the whole story? If you start comparing the 8Ks to one another - heck take a year's worth of 8Ks and track the figures. You will find that for months on end the same amount is provided over and over again, as of the same date - now further in the past. If you did not catch in an earlier PXD filing that they have a $3M legal expense, you would never know that from the 8K announcement. All you read about are the trustee expenses, admin and legal, interest on the loan, etc.
The "as of April 22, 2008 approximately $593,000" figures are probably correct and the Auditors will say - OK. But that does not cover the whole story, and that is what is being asked for and not being provided. One would expect the trustee and auditors to ask the next set of questions, as in - was that all the cash received and if not where was it used - and report that, but none of that is being supplied.
Its like balancing your elderly Mom's check book. Calling the bank and asking what her checking balance is, and being told that as of 1 Jan she had $1,274.36 in the account. Wow, real specific, down to the penny - but does that answer the question?
So earlier I wrote - What is wanted is transparency, and what were getting is translucency. If everything was transparent, all the numbers would be provided and would be up to date, telling a complete story. Having apparent translucency is having what appears to be all the numbers - everything, but never knowing what, if anything is missing. Everyone is getting a fee for various services, however the quality of and in the totality of information is not improving. There is a lot of movement of various items of data, however turning the mountain of data into usable information and knowledge, certainly appears to be falling short of the intended goal.
Also, its been well over a year, but on the $1.4M P&A charges, it was reported that they were for a number of leases. It turns out that some of the leases were abandoned years ago and the books closed on them. Then all of a sudden additional expenses - without any explanation as to what for and why, along with why now and not before closing the books of the old leases. Its like closing an old credit card account several years ago, and now getting a new bill for the account. You would have some questions, however - to date, there have been few answers.
Anyway - that is just my take on things.
Your Settlement Outline -
(1) PXD & Woodside divide up $250M to be paid and to flow through the trust. Too low for the actions that PXD are alleged to have performed. They had a legal fiduciary duty to perform for the trust - not against it. They have not even disclosed exactly what the $1.4M charges were for. What is the definition of a good operator? If Woodside would have been the operator - we would not be here now - as the farmout would have been arms length. So its PXD's ego that put us where we are now. They drilled a bad well, made the bad decisions, and now we are suppose to allow them to just get a slap on the hand.
(2) JPM will make a 1 time payment to reimburse all trust management expenses in the last 3 years to flow through the trust. Plus have an agreement where trustee will comb over trust affairs in more detail in the future. Way too low for the actions that JPM are alleged to have performed. They again had a legal fiduciary duty to perform for the trust - not against it. They were suppose to be a watchdog for the Trust and monitor PXD.
(3) Let PXD and Woodside remain as operators of Midway under a new agreement where the trust gets a 20% ORRI (in 4/8th’s) and Woodside and PXD each get a 40% WI (in 4/8th’s). (PXD to keep their 100% of the other 4/8th’s) PXD is out of GOM, why keep them. I have heard that Hydro considered PXD had really messed up on Midway and that Nimitz would not have the same problems. So why keep them. There are others around better qualified to bring in wells.
(4) In this new operating agreement include a requirement of PXD and/or Woodside to complete a minimum of 5 wells in attempt to find the 192 BCF of gas almost worth $2B with a 31% chance of finding it. Plus if commercially viable after 5 wells they need to drill more. (We need to define commercially viable in the agreement) An incentive is good, but for a new operator - not the failed current one that is there now.
Just one last question - if someone put out a contract on you with a hit man, would you offer the same deal as your proposing for PXD? - It's just a matter of business!
The seismic data
From everything I have read, and that may not be everything available, the Plaintiff's appear to only have requested the seismic products rather than any raw data of any type from Pioneer. That is what Gibbs is resting their hat on. I did not find the "they did not have seismic relations with that well" phrase, but Pioneer might have let Woodside wirelog the well, and the Plaintiff's may have directed their request to only PXD. These guys are parsing every comma and phrase in the request and only giving up what they interpret the request to include, and provide absolutely nothing else. To me, it appears that Gibbs is setting up that the Plaintiff's have not specifically requested something that Gibbs/PXD thinks to be important and is not turning over, such that after discovery closes and the Plaintiffs find that they did not get something specific that they will think that they should have received, Gibbs/PXD will refer to this filing and say - but Your Honor, they did not specifically request this and they were advised by their own experts. They should have known and we did not write their request.
The request needs to be wide, deep and as all inclusive as possible, to include any and all data (raw and refined), including, but not limited to all data, seismic and otherwise of any kind and or type (2D, 3D and or 4D [timelapsed]), wireline, borehole, downhole, electromagnetic, multicomponent or any and all other data (whether interpreted, analyzed or not) products for any and all areas in and around, for a distance of 10 nautical miles from the well platform center in question (Brazos A39 #5), to include but not limited to..... collected, obtained, licensed or received in any way (paid for or not) to and by any of the defendants, subsidiaries or associated firms, in any way, shape or form.
And I am not even an expert here.
Here is information from Schlumberger who specializes in well data of all kinds - http://www.slb.com/content/services/seismic/index.asp?
The MOSH "Independent Auditors" should have found that one...
Actually, the prior 10K/Qs should have reflected that, and if not PXD should have credited it to the P&A account, and if not should have assigned it to their legal expenses. But it is interesting that apparently it seems to have "disappeared".
I am not an accountant however it does seem that they should have found this.
This is just what has been suggested here on the board, that PXD will be ready to hand over the data, the day after the Jury decides the case.
From what I have heard from some people who have been in the court room, the Judge likes Kim and his humor, so I doubt that the court would find the language and position distasteful. Since PXD has already presented it's interpretations of the data in court hearings, their foot dragging should just enrage the court all the more.
I would like to see some sanctions, like the PXD attorneys and management spending time in court provided accommodations (the Harris County Jail), until they produce the data. Definition of a picosecond? I would be ready to send them a care package of "soap on a rope", to ease their time with Bubba.
Also, from JPM's first response to the lawsuit - "No good deed should go unpunished".
One last thought - by dragging their feet, they have been burning off time, so as to consume the Trust's last dime of cash, possibly setting up another distraction for the court to have to deal with. The defendant's really need a trip to the woodshed.
Interesting Story on JPM
I ran across this on another board and thought that it was very interesting, especially if a settlement/judgment with JPM is reached.
http://investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=4148&mn=99302&pt=msg&mid=4627847
___________________________________
A National Disaster
Rob Kirby
I was made aware of the existence of this article this evening. The author’s name is John Olagues. Here is his bio:
John Olagues is the owner and principal consultant for Truth IN Options and a recognized authority on listed and employee stock options.
After graduating from Tulane University (where he captained the baseball team and set many of Tulane's pitching records), John applied his B.A. in mathematics and his competitive spirit to the real world of stock options.
In 1976, John became a member of the Pacific Stock Exchange in San Francisco trading and managing options positions in scores of different stocks. John joined with Blair Hull to create Options Research, the first service to provide theoretical options values to market-makers and to the general public. In 1980, he became a member of the CBOE, where he personally traded more options in more diverse situations than any other trader.
After reading the piece, I contacted Mr. Olagues and asked for permission to repost his article with his bio. Additionally, I was curious, so I asked whether or not anyone from the mainstream financial press had contacted him regarding an interview or giving his article greater exposure?
His reply to me:
You can do with it what you wish. I have not had any calls or emails from the main stream media as they will not criticize the FED or J.P. Morgan. I am saying the J.P. Morgan essentially stole $30 billion from the tax payers through the FED and did a big favor for the short sellers, who probably made a few billion. From Cox to Bernanke, to Dimon and Cramer, they all played their roles.
This article is about how Bear Stearns stock was artificially collapsed so that illegal insider traders would make billions and J.P. Morgan would be paid $55 billion of US tax payer money to shore themselves up - and buy Bear Stearns at bankruptcy prices.
Massive buying of puts and shorting stock in Bear Stearns
On March 10, 2008, the closing price of Bear Stearns was 70. The stock had traded at 70 eight weeks earlier. On or prior to March 10, 2008 requests were made to the options exchanges to open new April series of puts with exercise prices of 20, and 22.5, and a new March series with an exercise price of 25.
Their requests were accommodated and new series were opened for trading March 11, 2008. Since there was very little subsequent trading in the call with exercise prices of 20, 22.5 or 25, it is certain that the requests were made with the intentions of buying substantial amounts of the puts.
There was in fact massive volumes of puts purchased in those series which opened on March 11, 2008.
For example: between March 11-14 inclusive, there were 20,000 contracts traded in the April 20s, 3700 contracts traded in the April 22.5s, and 8000 contracts traded in the April 25s. In the March 25s, there were 79,000 contracts traded between March 11-14, 2008.
Question: Why did the options exchanges not open the far out of the money puts for trading the first time that Bear Stearns stock hit 70, when the April and March options had far more time to expiration?
Certainly if the requesters were legitimate hedgers or speculators, their buying the March and April puts with 2 and 3 months to expiration was more reasonable.
Answer: The insiders were not ready to collapse the stock and did not request the exchanges to open the new series when Bear Stearns first hit 70.
Second Request and Accommodation
On or prior to March 13, 2008, an additional request was made of the options exchanges to open more March and April put series with very low exercise prices.
These new March put options would have just five days of trading to expiration.
The exchanges accommodated their requests, knowing that the intentions of the requesters were to buy puts. They indeed bought massive amounts of puts. For example the March 20 puts traded nearly 50,000 contracts (i.e. contracts to sell 5 million shares at 20). The March 15s traded 9600, the March 10s traded 13,000 and the March 5s traded 6300 all on March 14 (the first day of trading of the new March series).
The introduction of those far-out-of-the-money put series in the April and March months immediately before the crash provided a vehicle whereby extreme leverage was available
to the insiders. In other words if an insider had $100,000 and he knew that Morgan would buy Bear Stearns at 2, he could make 5-10 times more on the $100,000 by buying the newly introduced March puts. This is so because the soon to expire far out-of-the-money puts were far cheaper than the July or October out-of-the-money puts. And that is why the illegal inside traders requested the exchanges to introduce the far out-of-the-moneys just days before the crash.
But this scenario has serious implications.
This means that the deal was already arranged on March 10 or before. That contradicts the scenario that is promoted by SEC Chairman Cox, Fed Boss Bernanke, Bear CEO Schwartz, Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan (who sits on the board of directors for the New York Federal Reserve Bank) and others that false rumors undermined the confidence in Bear Stearns making the company crash, notwithstanding their adequate liquidity days before.
“I would say that the deal was arranged months before but the final terms and times were not determined until maybe March 7-8, 2008.”
On March 14, 2008, the April 17.5s, the 15s, the 12.5s and the 10s traded 15,000 contracts combined. Each put gives the right to sell 100 shares. So for example, these 15,000 April puts gave the purchaser(s) the right to sell 1.5 million shares at prices between 10 and 17.5. Those purchasers expected to make profits on 1.5 million shares because they knew the deal was coming at $2.00. That is the only plausible explanation for anyone to buy puts with five days of life remaining with strike prices far below the market price.
So there were requests, during the period of March 10-13, to the exchanges to open the March and April series for buying massive amounts of extremely out-of-the-money puts, which were accommodated by the options exchanges. Did the Exchanges aid and abet the insider trading scheme?
Media statements of adequate liquidity
However, Reuters, on March 10, 2008 was citing Bear Stearns sources that there was no liquidity crisis and that there was no truth to the speculation of liquidity problems. And none other than the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2008 was stating that "we have a good deal of comfort with the capital cushion that these firms have".
We even had the "mad" Jim Cramer proclaiming on March 11, 2008 that all is well with Bear Stearns and that the viewers should hold on to their Bear Stearns.
On March 12, 2008, Alan Schwartz CEO of Bear Stearns was telling David Faber of CNBC that there was no problem with liquidity and that "We don't see any pressure on our liquidity, let alone a liquidity crisis".
The fact that the requests were made on March 10 or earlier that those new series be opened and those requests were accommodated together with the subsequent massive open positions in those newly opened series is conclusive proof that there were some who knew about the collapse in advance, while Reuters, Cox, Schwartz and Cramer were telling the public that there was no liquidity problem.
“This was no case of a sudden development on the 13 or 14th, where things changed dramatically making it such that they needed a bail-out immediately.”
The collapse was anticipated and prepared for, even while the CEO of Bear Stearns and the SEC Chairman were making claims of stability.
What was the reason why Cramer, Cox and Schwartz were all promoting Bear Stearns immediately before its collapse? That will be speculated upon for years to come.
Cramer has admitted that "truth" was not his friend and that he manipulated stocks to influence investors behavior. Was this one of his acts? But no apologies from Cramer as he claims now that he was referring to keeping money in Bear Stearns Bank - not in Bear Stearns stock.
Proof of Insider Trading:
To prove the case of illegal insider trading, all the Feds have to do is ask a few questions of the persons who bought puts on Bear Stearns or shorted stock during the week before March 17, 2008 and before.
All the records are easily available. If they bought puts or shorted stock, just ask them why? What information did they have access to which the CEO and the SEC did not have? Where did they get the info? Why aren't Cramer and Cox, Dimon, Bernanke, Geithner, Paulson, Faber and Schwartz subject to a bit of prosecutorial pressure to get to the bottom of this? Maybe the buyers of puts and short sellers of stock just didn't believe Reuters, Cox, Schwartz, Cramer and Faber and went massively short anyway, buying puts that required a 70% drop in a week? Maybe they had better information than Schwartz or Cox? If they did, then that's a felony, with the profits made subject to forfeiture. April 4, 2008 Congressional Hearings on the Bear Stearns Bail-out: I watched both sessions and drew the following conclusions: In the first session there were the following witnesses; Bernanke of the Federal Reserve Board, Cox from the SEC, Geithner representing the New York Reserve Bank and an incidental player Mr. Steel from the Treasury. The only Senators that seem to be willing to attack these bankers were Bunning, Tester, Menedez and Reed. All the rest were useless and very respectful. Absurdities: All witnesses did their best to keep their stories consistent but they did slip up a bit. They all agree that the bail-out was necessary without any proof that it was. They all agreed that what caused the cash liquidity to dry up within one day was ‘rumor mongers’. Apparently it is claimed that some people have the ability to start false rumors about Bear Stearns's and other banks liquidity, which then starts a "run on the bank". These rumor mongers allegedly were able to influence companies like Goldman Sachs to terminate doing business with Bear Stearns, notwithstanding that Goldman et al. believed that Bear Stearns balance sheet was in good shape. (Goldman, between March 11-14 warned their average customers that Bear Stearns stock was "hard to borrow" for shorting due to the fact that other customers had used up all of the stock available for borrowing for short sales). That idea that rumors caused a "run on the bank" at Bear Stearns is 100% ridiculous. Perhaps that's the reason why every witness was so guarded and hesitant and looked so strained in answering questions. Loans to J.P. Morgan total $55 billion from FED. The Private New York FED lent $25 billion to Bear Stearns (described as the primary facility by James Dimon) and another $30 billion to J.P. Morgan (described as the secondary facility by James Dimon).
So the bail-out cost was $55 billion not the $30 billion that is promoted. This was revealed at the second session of the Senate hearings in a James Dimon response to a question from Senator Reed. Who gets the $55 billion?
J.P. Morgan received the money on a loan pledging Bear Stearns assets valued at $55 billion. $29 billion is non-recourse to Morgan. Effectively the FED received collateral appraised by Bear Stearns at $55 billion for a loan to J.P. Morgan of $55 billion.
“That's a loan to value of 100%.” If the value of the secondary facility of $30 billion ($29 billion of which is non recourse) is worth only $15 billion when all is said and done, then J.P. Morgan has to pay back only $1 billion of the $30 billion received and keeps the $14 billion the Fed loses. If the $25 billion primary facility is worth only $15 billion when all is said and done, J.P. Morgan has to pay $10 billion of the $25 billion received. If J.P Morgan can not pay, then the Fed loses the $10 billion. If after all is said and done, the $25 billion primary assets or the $30 billion secondary assets are sold for more that $25 billion or the $30 billion respectively, the difference goes to J.P. No matter how you cut it, J.P. Morgan wins. If the $55 billion assets turn out to be worth only $20 billion when all is said and done, J.P. Morgan owes $1 billion on the $30 billion and the difference between $25 billion and the value received on the primary facility.
“The best the FED can do: get their money back with interest. The worst they can do is lose $25 -$40 billion.”
The FED would have been far better to just buy the assets at Bear's and J.P. Morgan's valuation. The question arises:
Why didn't the FED just make the $55 billion loan to Bear Stearns directly?
The FED received Bear Stearns assets valued by Bear Stearns as its only collateral for the 100% loan. I am sure that Bear Stearns would have guaranteed the full $55 billion and would have advanced more collateral and accepted a 90% loan to value. Everything would have been just fine for Bear Stearns and the FED would have had a better deal. But the Bear Stearns stock would have gone up and all short stock sellers and all put buyers would have massive losses instead of massive gains.
“The bail-out is a great deal for J.P. Morgan, the illegal insider short sellers got a great deal. Bear Stearns stock holders and employees got a very bad deal and the sellers of puts sustained large losses.”
This shows, in my view, that J.P. Morgan and the FED were in collusion with the short sellers and put buyers.
~John Olagues~
Conclusion:
While I’m saddened to learn what John has reported here, I’m not surprised. Personally, I now believe that the “take down” of Bear Stearns served as a façade to recapitalize none other than J.P. Morgan.
You see, J.P. Morgan’s derivatives book is 2 – 3 times bigger than Citibank’s – and it was derivatives that caused losses of more than 30 billion at Citibank [14.1 billion Q1/08 and 18.1 billion Q4/07]. So, it only made common sense that J.P. Morgan had to be a little more than “knee deep” in the same stuff that Citibank was – but how do tell the market that a bank – ANY BANK – needs to be recapitalized to the tune of 50 – 80 billion?
Now, it appears, we know the answer to that question.
Posted 4-23-08
http://www.lemetropolecafe.com/toulouse-lautrec_table.cfm?pid=6836
Playing for time?
I have always thought that PXD, JPM and Woodside have been playing whatever came along for time. Keep playing for time. Stretch things out and maybe conditions would change. The current conditions have gone against them so far, however here is an article that considers a possible turnaround of the current situation. If hydrocarbon prices start to level and then go soft, it may let PXD, JPM and Woodside off to an extent. In their current situation, something (anything) would be better than the current environment they may be facing with MOSH.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/04/24/cnoil124.xml
Obviously, where the price of hydrocarbons actually goes depends on a lot of factors, so this is just one view.
JP Morgan's Really Weird Capital Raise
Apparently JPM is in need of additional capital - $6 Billion.
http://www.portfolio.com/views/blogs/market-movers/2008/04/16/jp-morgans-really-weird-capital-raise
MOSH legal fees and the trust -
Here is my understanding of the situation. JPM is the Trustee of the MOSH Trust. MOSH Holdings LLC is the group that started the lawsuit. MOSH Holdings LLC is funding the lawsuit, and I believe they have stated that they are doing this on behalf of the unitholders.
On the other hand, you have the MOSH Trust, which started out 3 years with about $2M in reserves. Over the last 3 years, the $2M was used, and JPM loaned the trust $3M against the trust's assets. Now that $3M is just about gone, that's about $5M in 3 years for administrative expenses and JPM legal fees.
On the PXD side, PXD collects all the income from the lease properties with WD is now producing an estimated $400K/mt. If and when Nimitz comes on line, there might be another $300K/mt - but who knows when. This income stream has apparently being used to pay PXD legal fees (estimated in the 2nd CSA at $3M), and the $1.4M P&A charges assessed by PXD. So the Trust has been getting nothing. At the rate WD is producing income, PXD could be paid off by say - October. However, I think that PXD's legal fees would just expand to consume what ever amount of income that is available.
To me it appears that PXD has an effective block on any income getting into the trust (which would be used by JPM for administrative expenses and JPM legal fees), thus setting up the situation where JPM might be tempted to call the loan and take the assets (thus possibly terminating the Trust). How this would be viewed by the Judge, would be real interesting. Another thought of mine would be that JPM would take the assets, thus being able to keep the income from WD to fund their own legal fees rather than letting PXD use the income against their legal fees.
I think that this would not be viewed very kindly by the Judge. Especially if MOSH won the lawsuit, JPM would have to give the assets back, which might be difficult if they sold them. What I think would happen, would probably a lot of posturing and saying that they would do something, but JPM would probably do nothing and pay their own legal fees against a larger debt against the trust's assets (something they said that they would not do). PXD was paying their own legal fees prior to WD coming back on line.
If they (JPM) did anything else, I think that the Judge would probably get really upset. At one time there was an agreement that JPM/PXD would give 60 days notice before doing anything. Also, I believe that in the original lawsuit, MOSH LLC requested an injunction against JPM/PXD preventing them from terminating the trust and selling the assets.
Bottom line - its an interesting question that no one knows the answer to. So there is probably going to be a lot of bluster from JPM on this in the future. Since PXD had to carry the trust with their legal fees prior to WD's income stream, JPM would probably be forced to do the same. Its not like they are both paupers. Overall - probably a moot analysis. I think that the trust is relatively safe. The first indication that JPM/PXD were going to do anything against the trust, would have MOSH LLC going directly to the Judge for a protective standstill order.
_______________
Just my views...
Instructmba - MOSH farmout -
To answer your question, PXD owned 50% out right and then also managed MOSH's 50%. When they went to drill, since each had a working interest (WI), each side needed to fund the drilling. MOSH did not have the money. Rather than fronting the funds like what was done in the past, PXD farmed out MOSH's WI to Woodside, and MOSH received 4.8% in an overriding royalty. However PXD was the operator, and I believe in the view of the lawsuit, causes it to be an illegal farmout under the trust articles since it requires all farmouts to be to third party arms length agreement. The farmout to Stone on WD is an example - PXD was not involved. However on Midway, PXD was involved as operator thru their 50% WI. The other question in my mind was ORR's are usually in 1/8 or 12.5%. 1/2 of 12.5% is 6.25% and our ORR is 4.8%, so it looks like we came up short. If I am missing something, I don't see how I figured wrong.
Hopefully that explains it.
___________
... just my view - no more, no less
Notes from last year's courtroom CSA hearings
I went back and look at some notes a couple of people sent me last year during the court hearings on the first CSA. The Judge had laid out 2 primary questions - A and B, in a logical and orderly sequence. The Defense came in and wanted (sort of demanded) to present B first with an immediate ruling, so that they would never get to A.
She took control of her courtroom and made sure that the defense understood that she was running things - her way. Also, when the defense took some liberties, she reminded them that again it was her courtroom, and she was the Judge.
She also asked, how the unitholders would fair with the first CSA (not too well).
My opinion - This does not bode well for the defense - and they did it to themselves. They dug themselves a hole, I am content with poring some cement around their feet while they are in the hole. They made their bed, let them sleep in it. Serves them right.
Sympathetic Judge
I really do not understand the comments here on the Judge. So far, I see absolutely nothing wrong, in terms of how the Judge has ruled, or has been handling this case. She has run a very fair case and courtroom.
On the other hand, if I were the Defense, I would be worried sick, and that is probably what your seeing in their filings. If the trust did not have such a reasonable Judge, this case would have been history long ago.
I suggest that you may want to return to the initial court that this was filed in down in Austin, TX. Judge Dietz if I remember correctly. Woodside's lead attorney was also named Dietz. It turns out that they were MARRIED. Funny on how that worked. The case was there in that courtroom for almost a year, until it was moved down to Houston due to the trustee issue.
Judge McCally is a Republican, but first and foremost she took on the drug companies defending people who had taken FenFen. I believe that she really understands what it is like to go up against the odds and have a reasonable level playing field in the courtroom. In this instance, the party she belongs to has probably no bearing.
Speeding up the DCO situation
"Curious to see how mosh's legal team responds to the newest 37132704 document, especially to the accusation that plaintiffs delayed/waited to collect the seismic data from october 2007 till mid march."
If the defendants are so concerned about the waiting and delay, they could have delivered the seismic data any time. The defendants said that they would deliver in May of 2005 with the Rule 11 agreement. They used the data for their own ends in the hearings last July, and never delivered it to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs asked and that was the basis for the entire re-opening of discovery that was granted in what February. I think that there is the one of the world's largest game of chicken going on - MOSH asking for the data and PXD not delivering the data. It grows even larger with the fact that MOSH essentially paid for the data that PXD was holding. The Trust indentures state that what ever data is available the Trust unitholders are able to see if they sign a non disclosure agreement, which I think is what Rule 11 also contains. So the foot dragging is on PXD. Should they have gone out and paid for the data all over again? So far the trust has paid for JPM's legal defense, and PXD has apparently used all the UD61 and BA39 trust income for their defense legal bills. MOSH has paid their own, as the agreement with JPM in essentially my mind of getting standing. So PXD has never apparently delivered the data, and is now apparently saying that they are the good guys because the Plaintiffs now have the data.
I also think that the Plaintiffs wanted to ensure that they had sufficient time to analyze the data and then sufficient follow up opportunities for what ever additional discovery may be needed based on what the data showed - all things that PXD would like to cut off.
So to me it appears that PXD is complaining to the Judge that the Plaintiffs are not playing fair. If PXD was really interested in a speedy trial, all of this could have been over and done with a year ago. So that is just my reading and view of the filings - nothing more - nothing less.
On the topic of the Judge's election - my view, is the sooner the better. We know that it certainly appears that the current Judge is playing very fair, ensuring that MOSH gets a level playing field in court. Have no idea as to how a new Judge would view any of this. Plus, it would take additional time for a new Judge to get up to speed. How about all of the past history that has transpired up to now? We know that the current Judge has been somewhat unsympathetic with PXD's positions. Its a David vs Goliath battle here. I would like to get this done with the current Judge, as soon as possible, - given that the Trust has all the data and information to be as fully prepared as possible.
________________
... just my thoughts
With PXD salting the record on Standing -
I find that with PXD's lawyers (whom the trust is paying for with the income from WD61 and BA39) salting the court record indicating that the Plaintiffs are "dragging" their feet on getting to court, pretty funny if it was not so pathetic. The Plaintiffs has been asking, demanding and waiting for the seismic data now for almost 3 years (in May), having traded under the Rule 11 agreement, the ability to continue to buy stock, for gaining the seismic data, which the trust paid for back in 95. Apparently, all that proves is that PXD's lawyer's agreement on an agreement is worth - just how much?
Just an aside - if the Plaintiffs could continue to purchase, and if able to gain a 50% majority, then with the appointment of a new trustee AND a new MGP, then there would be NO Standing issue, as the new trustee and MGP would easily be able to go after PXD and Woodside with no interference on behalf of the trust. So, in a way, the Rule 11 fiasco essentially could be seen to shield PXD's position, on Standing.
PXD used the data in the court hearings last July on the first CSA, but again never provided the data for the Plaintiffs to review and analyze. So much for discovery and equal access to all revilement items to all parties in court. So what is the hold up? How many times does the dog get to eat the data?
I can only conclude that - Yes PXD is aiming to set up a basis for appeal. The Plaintiffs on the other hand have standing to sue JPM, that is not disputed. So, I guess that when PXD appeals, we will have another "MikeWhite" moment, however this time we can all be ready.
I would think that if somehow PXD does wiggle out of this (and I hope that they can not and do not), that after JPM is nailed, they will go after PXD to get partially whole again.
_________________
... just my thoughts...
Ca$h - pdf to word converters -
Cash, these pdf to word converters are great if the pdf file is computer generated file. On the other hand if the pdf file is scanned or a FAX based file, then you need to run it through an OCR (optical character recognition) utility - which is fully dependent on the quality of the input. It usually does not work too well.
Woodsides Payment Information
Well here is some information. I doubt that there is a specific source on what exactly they spent. Here is an outline of the agreement in the Pioneer Natural Resources 2004 Annual Report
http://216.139.227.101/interactive/pxd2004/download.php?fn=pxd2004.pdf
from page 38...
During January 2003, the Company announced a joint exploration agreement with Woodside Energy (USA), Inc. (" Woodside"), a subsidiary of Woodside Energy Ltd. of Australia, for a two-year drilling program over the shallow-water Texas shelf region of the Gulf of Mexico. Under the agreement, Woodside acquired a 50 percent working interest in 47 offshore exploration blocks operated by the Company. The agreement covers eight prospects and 19 leads and included five exploratory wells originally scheduled to be drilled in 2003 and three in 2004. Most of the wells to be drilled under the agreement target gas plays below 15,000 feet. The first three wells under this joint agreement were unsuccessful. The fourth well, Midway, encountered 30 feet of net gas pay and is expected to be tied back to an existing production platform with first production anticipated during the second quarter of 2005. Three other intervals with an additional 60 feet of gas bearing sands were also encountered and will require additional analysis to determine future
commercial potential. The Company has a 37.5 percent working interest in this well. The fifth well that was originally
scheduled to be drilled in 2003 and the three wells originally scheduled to be drilled in 2004 under the agreement, which has been extended for one additional year, were mutually agreed to be deferred until more technical work can be performed on the prospects by both companies. Additionally, the Company and Woodside are evaluating shallower gas prospects on the Gulf of Mexico shelf for possible inclusion in the 2005 drilling program.
shisya - what is BA39 worth....
The point that he is trying to get across is that Pioneer is telling us that the property is really not worth anything. On the other hand, Woodside, 1/3 owned by Shell and Australia's largest oil company, kicked in $50M for half the BA39 property and did not do it blindfolded. They are a very large deep water player in the world. They only bought in with their own expert's analysis that there is a good probability of getting something in return, with the understanding that exploration and development activities have their own inherent amount of risk.
Just my point of view...
ronpopeil - Standing
Yes, I would like to see MOSH have standing, and I do agree with you. However, prepare for the worst and hope for the best - and everything will be OK.
I am always reading - however, I have been traveling on business lately, and it looks like I will be doing more in the future. That said, I am usually around, although not always able to post.
Unitholders have standing against JPM
Pioneer can play all the "standing" games they want, however JPM can not claim that MOSH unitholders do not have standing against them. In the absolute worst case, JPM pays.
However, in the end - I do think that MOSH will have standing against PXD, in particular due to the actions (or inaction) of JPM. I believe that the first Conditional Settlement Agreement (CSA) illustrated in spades - that the entities paid to defend the Trust, and in fact not doing anything to help the Trust - other than to hasten its termination.
__________________
Just the way I see things - others may have differing viewpoints.
shisya,
I can attest that GOMO$H's source(s) are indeed reliable, knowledgeable, and most importantly verifiable. The sources are real and the information would stand the test of a court challenge - if Pioneer were so inclined. I doubt that Pioneer would challenge the facts, since THEY cashed the checks or received the Bank Transfers. Funny thing about an audit trail.
As Deep Throat said during Watergate - "Follow the money".
.... or as we say in my profession - Gravity Works!
PXD Institutional Ownership & Assets -
Here is a list, as of the first of the year, of PXD's institutional ownership...
http://www.j3sg.com/Reports/Stock-Insider/generate-Institution.php?tickerLookUp=PXD&pageNumber=1&descending=1&sortBy=value
Also, on Yazoo there was an interesting post on PXD's assets...
Pioneer disclosed an SEC PV-10 value of $13.4 billion at YE 2007, which included $9.7 billion for proved developed reserves and $3.7 billion for proved undeveloped reserves at prices of $95.92 / barrel for oil and $6.80 / MMBTU for gas (see slide 8 of our March Investor Presentation on PXD’s website).
Interesting presentation as to where their assets are and valued..
http://www.secinfo.com/dsvrp.v9qp.d.htm
... just my rantings
There is some additional information on the DCO.
Mid 2007 presented the unit holders a ring side seat for a week of hearings on the defendant's conditional settlement agreement (CSA) arguments for why the first CSA should have been approved. Essentially, it was a mini trial, where the defendants essentially presented their case (at least to that point in time), as to why they should be let off the hook, while providing the unit holders a way to evaluate their (PXD, JPM and Woodside's) "defense". This is something that usually is not done, so rather than going into the main trial cold turkey, the unit holders were able to evaluate both sides - early on, which I believe (at least to me) was very valuable.
The seismic data was presented by PXD, along with the defendant's analysis of it (and this is where the Plaintiffs were able to see that they were sandbagged by the defense - where they did not turn over the data, but used it). If this would have been a trial, then the Plaintiffs quite possibly would have been at a disadvantage, not having sufficient time to get the data and analyze it. Also, in a trial like setting, the Plaintiffs were able to see the defendant's expert witnesses and their position on the data analysis, and how the Judge took in all the information. The more I think about the first CSA, the more I think that the defendant's were really stupid trying to pull this fast one over on the Trust. Where else where two defendants attempt to excuse each other from a lawsuit brought by a Plaintiff?
Yes, it cost the trust's reserves well over a million dollars paying the defendant's legal costs, but for the unit holder's, we were able to see possibly how the defendant's might run their defense, and evaluate both sides, along with our potential chances. A trial always carries risks, but currently I think that they favor the unit holders.
What this also did, was to afford the Judge the opportunity to see what each side had and how they might handle the trial. I really believe that rather than benefiting the defendants, it hurt them, especially when the Judge asked how the unit holders may fair in all of this. This is why, in my view, that waiting for the DCO is to our advantage. I think the Judge is being fair with an open mind, but wanting to make sure that the Plaintiffs and unit holders are not rail-roaded by some group of large corporations.
So rather than worrying what may be in the DCO, we just need to wait this out. All of this is to our advantage.
Anyway - that's my thinking on this. Your's may be different...
The other shoe - BK
So be it a judgment or a settlement, your view is that PXD will/may go BK in order to protect its assets. They could do that - Texaco did (after the judgment when Penzoil started seizing assets), but Penzoil still received their funds (granted a bit less than the original judgment).
The value in PXD is as a going concern not as a pure asset play on book value. However, when a company goes BK, the company then MUST be run for only the benefit of the CREDITORs, and not the shareholders.
So, as one of the largest creditors, MOSH arranges Boone Pickens to take over as Receiver, who then cancels all the $40/bbl hedges that PXD is selling their $100/bbl oil for. MOSH can not take stock (trust documents specify no "investments" as such, but could take high quality producing properties, leaving the stripper wells PXD management is trying to spin off in a couple of MLP's). If PXD went BK, it would affect managements golden parachute and I believe some of their perks - stock grants, bonuses, etc. For once to save the company they would have to possibly take it in the shorts - what a novel concept. Also - the funds that own 85% of the shares would probably not be too happy.
Also, the judgment or a settlements would be across not only PXD but JPM and Woodside. Also, it would bring up an interesting question, especially if JPM put PXD into BK in order to protect themselves. But if we get a judgment, if PXD is unable to pay, then JPM and Woodside are stuck with paying the whole amount. The next question would be - who would do the debtor funding - JPM? Would they roll over their $1.5B credit line - in this environment?
So is there a risk - yes, but you have a risk of not waking up in the morning too.
shisya, Zeigler's ORR calculations -
For the sake of simplicity, everyone has been referring to the trust's ORR interest as 5%. Zeigler essentially shows how this is arrived at.
* The Trust owns 99.99% of the partnership, but receives 90% of the income
* The trust owns half of the BA39 lease
* PXD traded the trusts 50% working interest (wi) for the 10.2% ORR
* When you multiply it all together, you come up with the 5% (or actually the 4.590% of the entire BA39 lease income stream - after capital recovery)
So that is the explanation of the mathematical formula Zeigler provided, as I understand it.
Wait, Watch, Read, Listen, and Think! -
Get a cup of coffee, breakfast, the morning paper and some orange juice. Sit back and watch and listen.
JPM, PXD and Woodside along with the Plaintiffs will be jousting with each other. There are probably more shoes to drop. The defendants will probably have some additional ideas like the first two CSAs that they want to toss out on the table. They will also try to screw over the plaintiffs to see if they can again try to wiggle out for very little or free.
I have no idea what will come, but I am sure that the defendants will try everything they can. We just need to watch, wait and listen. Then based on what we see, try to think everything through and attempt to influence the events the best way we can, by whatever means possible.
I have no magic crystal ball, so there is not much I know beyond my own opinion and my wife call that in to question at times...
MOSH Trust Background
shisya, take a look at post 6770. That should explain the trust's 99.99% ownership of the partnership and how the trust's 50% ownership of the lease, became a 5% over riding royalty.
Also if you go to the http://www.mosh-info.byethost32.com/services.htm website there is a diagram on one of the pages there showing how the trust works, flow of cash, control and ownership.
Yes there are a lot of layers and moving parts to all of this, but after a while it all starts to make a little sense.
Hope that helps
Ziegler's report
From some discussions I had off line, in order to realize Ziegler's valuation, a number of additional wells (something like 10 to 12, I think) had to be drilled. PXD's main argument was that at $30 to $50 million each it became un-economical, plus the trust could not force PXD to drill them (forcing PXD to make oil & gas operating decisions). To me, what was very interesting, was the find that MikeWhite came across - the Texas State Statue - Prudent Operations - that indicated that at least on state leased lands, the operator appears to be obligated to drill the additional wells in order to produce the discovery if it was deemed a commercial find (and note that PXD's own report to the MMS called #5 a commercial find). So the state statue, effectively - in my mind - indicates that Ziegler's method of valuation was correct, and PXD appears to be cherry picking their arguments.
From what I understand, on Federal lands, the State of Texas gets a reasonable large percentage of the federal take from these leases. So possibly since the state participates to a large degree, the state version of prudent operations would apply. In absent of a real definition of what prudent operations are - or at least PXD's view, the state's version is probably something that the Court, Judge and Jury would listen to.
_____________
... just my opinion.
gtiger - partnership agreement
The question you ask is one of the central points of the lawsuit. A trial is necessary rather than just a ruling. The Plaintiffs have asked for a Jury trial. The rulings that the Judge has handled so far are items leading up to a trial, along with the various CSAs - conditional settlement agreements. If you think of it, the set of hearings, mid last year, on the first CSA were indirectly centered around this question, and the Judge ruled against the CSA that provided that the trustee and managing general partner, each excused the other from the lawsuit for the good of the trust.
______________
.... just my opinion.
Pioneer's position on the Lawsuit
Mike, I like Pioneer's position, saying that they are immune to any legal action from the trust, trustee, and especially the unit holders. Sounds like sovereign immunity to me....
"Defendant Pioneer Natural Resources, USA, Inc. ("PNR") is the sole managing general partner of the Partnership. under the terms of the Partnership Agreement only the managing general partner - PNR - has the authority to manage the Partnership's affairs. The authority to manage the Partnership's affairs expressly includes the right to prosecute claims or lawsuits on behalf of the Partnership. No other partner, including the Trust, has this authority." - (Partnership agreement)
There was some legal history that was found that addresses the belief that PXD is immune from unit holder litigation on any topic. An Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern University writes in the University of Illinois Law Review, an article that addressed this topic in passing, stating in part,
“The suggestion that the statutory business trust is used mainly as a malleable entity of convenience may also explain why more has not been made of its extreme freedom of contract. The Delaware-style acts state that their underlying policy is to “give maximum effect to the principle of freedom of contract and to the enforceability of governing instruments.” 45 Taken literally, several appear to authorize indemnification of the trustees for even willful breach of duty.46 To put this in context, under Delaware corporate law, indemnification of corporate managers typically requires that they have acted in good faith.47 Likewise, although the common law of trusts permits indemnification and exculpation clauses, a total exoneration from all fiduciary obligations—that is, authorization of a bad faith trusteeship—is forbidden.48”
This addresses a Delaware corporation law, and I think that PXD just might be a Delaware corporation. Also, since most companies are incorporated in Delaware, I would think that there is a good chance that the Judge would consider this VALID.
____________________
Sitkoff, Robert H, “Trust as ”Uncorporation” A Research Agenda, University of Illinois Law Review, Volume 1, June 20, 2005. http://home.law.uiuc.edu/lrev/publications/2000s/2005/2005_1/Sitkoff.pdf
___________________
... You all have to remember that this is just my opinion and I am NOT anything close to a lawyer (nor do I want to be).
Docket control order -
I absolutely agree that we will get a new docket control order. The Judge has said as much. The timing of such an order, I believe is just as important as knowing that we will get it. As I said before, I believe that a large game of chicken is being played. The defendants know that it is coming, thus I believe that they are holding off on providing the seismic data, hoping that the Judge will issue the order with a trial date. They probably have assumed that they are going to have to hand over the seismic data eventually, but if they can hold off till as close to the trial date as possible, they are hoping to bury the Plaintiffs with information, so that they are as ill prepared as possible. That is not to our benefit.
So, I think that the Judge is - yes, hoping that both sides will work something out, but I also believe she wants to ensure that the Plaintiffs get a fair shot at the data and sufficient time for its evaluation, before setting a trial date. The defendants, and PXD in particular, used this data with their particular spin as to what it shows, with out the Plaintiffs, even knowing it was coming. So the Judge has to be leveling the playing field here, and if it takes some waiting on our part so be it. I have been waiting several years for this, I can easily wait a bit longer. The longer we have to wait, the higher the settlement price goes. And I envision a number with an awful lot of zeros behind the lead figure.
_________________
.... just my opinion.
Waiting for an date -
I do not know anything on the last hearing. However, there is usually an obvious answer to most questions and I think that we can figure it out here...
1) We know the Judge gave both sides 10 days to come up with a date. I think that was some pressure the Judge was applying.
2) The 10 days are up and PXD's lawyer asks for a conference, probably hoping to get the Judge to set a date.
3) We know that the Plaintiffs want the seismic data, so if the Judge sets a date before the seismic is handed over, PXD just sits on the data and waits out the clock.
4) The Plaintiffs probably need some time to analyze the seismic data if they ever get it.
4) So its my opinion, that the Judge did not do anything other than answer what ever questions that were asked, that she wanted to answer, and is waiting for the seismic data to be transfered, before she does anything. It would also be interesting to see what the Judge does if the data is not provided - especially since PXD used it already for their courtroom presentation in mid 2007.
5) I also think that what ever negotiations are going on are over the seismic data and when (or if) PXD delivers.
So, I would not read too much in to anything, until the court posts something. I think a big game of seismic chicken is being played out. It might be a while. We all are just sitting here on the courthouse lawn watching the grass grow till then.
_______________
... just my opinion - nothing more - nothing less.