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.
Ja das ist die Stammaktien Aktionäre Forum, sind Sie Inhaber eines Shre?
OhMyGod thanks for your post!
I had basically given up, it was really painful. But without a legal team what can one expect.
I received a package from the trustee today, I have been asked by the trustee to contact him and in his letter he asks if there was a forum to communicate with what he calls the ATP unsecured creditors.
Because he asks for information on a forum to communicate and his letter is not marked confidential please find the following letter to me.
Dear Mr. Meyer,
I am the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee for ATP. Since you were an active unsecured creditor in this estate I would like you to contact me at your earliest convenience.
I recently filed a motion for use of cash collateral seeking to use $345,000 of funds to pay for the expenses on the Israeli gas interests so the estate could proceed with its investment. The motion advised the Court that the estate would need to use $4 million of the BP funds to pay our portion of the first well and another $4 million for the second well. I advised the Court that I was hoping the timing of the need to use the funds would correspond to the next two BP payments which will come in October 2017 and October 2018. At the hearing the Court was emphatic that he would not allow me to make a speculative investment of estate funds for this project and that I needed to sell the interest.
It is clear that if I sell this interest now the unsecured creditors will get nothing. In fact, the DIP lenders will not be paid in full either. I explained to the Court that in order to protect a potential recovery for the unsecured creditors I need to take this asset through both drillings. I told him that a sale now would guarantee that the unsecureds would receive nothing. He stated that there was less than a 1% chance he would approve the investment, that if I wanted to do something like that then I would have to convert the case to a chapter 11 and then he believed there would only be a 4% chance he would approve it. In other words, the chance is bleak.
If the first well is successful the value of this asset increases exponentially. If the second well is successful, it is likely the unsecured creditors would receive something unless the figure of $500 million being owed to Chapter 11 administrative expenses is correct, which I doubt but that issue may have to be litigated.
There are fields surrounding the Daniels East, Daniels West, and the Shimshon that have been successful. I've enclosed some data gathered by my engineer regarding these fields.
Is there a forum to communicate with ATP unsecured creditors? I would like to communicate with as many ATP unsecured creditors as possible to see if there is a way this asset can be preserved for the potential benefit of unsecured creditors. If the Court will not let me use estate funds for this purpose, it is possible he may agree to the use of non-estate funds. I did a quick calculation and realized that if all unsecured creditors participated in the effort to raise the funds necessary to drill these wells, assuming $1.25 billion in unsecured creditors, the investment would be about $70.00 per $100,000.00 of original investment.
Whether the investment comes from the unsecured pool or elsewhere I don't care, so long as I can try to preserve this asset's value for the benefit of unsecured creditors. If we remove the speculative use of estate funds and replace it with the speculative use of third party funds then maybe we can get this through whether it is in a chapter 7 or a chapter 11. I can move to convert to a chapter 11 if l can work something out. However, in a chapter 11 we will need votes to approve a plan.
Those details can be worked out later. The purpose of this email is to try to help you as an unsecured creditor. If this effort does not work then I will have to sell all or part of the interest. At today's value a sale of the entire interest will not be at a price that can make a return to unsecured creditors.
What I want to do is work out a mechanism to try to help the unsecured creditors. The forum or just emails may work. Please let me know if you think you can help.
I want to emphasize, there is absolutely no certainty I can organize anything that will work but I'm willing to try.
Yours truly,
Rodney Tow
Good evening ......... I received a letter from the Trustee today. It appears he needs our help.
Anyone left watching ATP?
Telephonic Participation/Live Viewing of Court Documents During Hearings.
a. Dial in at least 5 minutes before your hearing is scheduled to begin.
b. Parties are always permitted to participate by dial-in without any permission or notification to the Court except:
i. Dial-in participation is not allowed for chapter 13 panel hearings.
ii. Witnesses may not be presented by dial-in and witnesses may not be examined by telephone, except in emergency situations if the Court determines to waive this prohibition for good cause.
iii. Parties may not participate by cell phone, but may listen to hearings from their cell phone.
c. Parties may not participate by speakerphone.
d. Do not place your telephone on hold. You may mute your phone. If you dial in to a hearing, you are participating in a court proceeding and are bound by the normal rules of courtesy and attention.
e. If a technological problem arises, the hearing will continue without the participation of dial in participants. The Court will not delay hearings for signal problems or interference. Accordingly, persons choosing to attend a hearing by dial-in do so at their own risk of a technological failure.
f. The following procedures must be used for dial-in participation.
i. The dial-in number is 1-712-432-3100. You will be responsible for your own long-distance charges. This dial-in number should be used regardless of the Court location of the hearing (Houston, Brownsville, Corpus Christi, Galveston or McAllen).
ii. You will be asked to key in the conference room number. The conference room number is 815978. Once this number is entered, you will be connected live to the courtroom.
iii. Once you are connected, you will be able to hear persons speaking in the courtroom and other persons on the call addressing the Court. You will not be able to address the Court until the Court addresses you or you request to speak and the Court grants the request.
iv. If you wish to address the Court, you must press 5*. Do not press 5* until you need to address the Court. Within 5 seconds, the Court will receive a signal that you wish to speak. When the Court calls on you, you will hear a recorded message that your line has been unmuted. At that time, you can be heard.
v. When you are done, the Court may again terminate your ability to speak. You may press 5* if an additional issue arises that you wish to address with the Court.
vi. Telephonic participants may connect on-line to view the Court’s broadcast onto the courtroom’s television monitors. This procedure will not show any broadcast made by a party. To view on-line, you may connect through the website located at https://www.join.me. Click on “Join Meeting”. The code for the meeting is “judgeisgur”. If you are attempting to view the broadcast on an IPAD or similar device, you may be required to download a free app from the website.
The next best thing is to call in, I will not be driving to Houston but will be calling in. From the court documents, looks like two letters.
Folks need to call in, I will provide everyone with the call in instructions to make it easy. You can also see the hearing via the internet. I will provide that information also.
We need to flood the call in line.
Send letters Today!!!!!!!
Good Evening ..... a must read is Mr. Mekbib's letter, court document 3795.
Just me, it is not over we have a hearing.
Good evening ……… it’s has been six days since court document 3734 was filed, how many have read this document?
As I think about this reported find in Daniel East and West and ATP once held a 40% interest in these fields, I am troubled and somewhat puzzled. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent to pay professionals in this case and what has been the result? Nothing more than a common money grab.
Did you know that according to the resource report, Netherland and Sewell in their evaluation of the Daniel East and West fields used 3D seismic data acquired in 2001 by Western Geco with the processing completed in 2013? PGS also acquired a new seismic data set in 2014, which was processed by Western Geco and completed in 2015.
To me this 2014 data was to confirm what was found in the 2013 processing. Both data sets were used to make this evaluation of the David East and West fields. So we had seismic data shot in 2001, final processing in 2013, and with that a few people had a very good understanding what the David reserves might be, my question who were the folks that knew?
Did you also know that it was reported in January 2013 that Isramco Negev 2 partnership said that they had submitted a court petition to the bankruptcy court to buy the rights of its partner, ATP Oil and Gas, in Israel's offshore Shimshon natural gas field for $39.7 million.
Isramco and its affiliates owned 60% of the Shimshon field, and ATP owned 40%. (5% ATP and 35% ATP East Med) My guess is that Isramco’s offer was no more than 10 ten cents on the dollar value; maybe less.
Isramco stated, “because ATP has filed for bankruptcy, the court must approve the sale”. Isramco also reported that the Shimshon field likely contains up to 2.3 Tcf of gas, according to geological surveys. ) Today ATP only holds a 5% interest, what happened to the 35%.
You will not find information regarding this January 2013 $39.7 million dollar offer in any of the bankruptcy court documents, but you will find a filing on 1/31/2013 stating Doyle, Restrepo, Harvin and Robbins representing Isramco, court document 1295.
So now we are talking 2013, the dip lenders are buying the assets, 6/21/2013 court document 2094, limited objection by Isramco to court document 1252; you may recall the dip lenders at the eleventh hour tried to slip into their purchase the Israeli assets. Franks Casing steps up at the same time with Isramco, court document 2097, joinder in Isramco objection and the result, the Dip can’t have the Israeli assets.
What is interesting in Isramco objection they state, ATP East Med Number 1 B.V. (“ATP BV”), entered into Farmout Agreements and Joint Operating Agreements with the Isramco Parties with regard to oil and gas exploration on the Shimshon License and the Daniel Licenses, offshore licenses located off the coast of Israel. (This represented the 35% interest in these fields.) Because of ATP BV’s inexperience and affiliation with ATP, ATP effectively became the Operator of the Licenses, (This represented the 5% interest) Isramco continues, although it (APT) has probably forfeited that status under Israeli law. (But today ATP still holds the 5% interest.)
It is documented that the DIP Lenders tried in the eleventh hour to take these assets and of course they had to know of Isramco’s earlier offer , again my guess Isramco’s offer was no more than 10 ten cents on the dollar; maybe less. Just me, but someone knew what the seismic data contained and of course we have no clue as to what was going on behind the scenes in this bankruptcy with these assets. The DIP did not get the assets and it appears Isramco did.
The sale of ATP Netherlands started around 10/1/2013, court documents 2618,2619,2622,2628,2666 and 2678. With this sale all of the Israeli assets where to be transferred from ATP East Med to ATP before that sale was to be completed. These assets were the 35% holdings of the Shimshon and David fields. At that closing ATP was to hold all of the Israeli assets.
Another interesting late 2012 fact, court document 1046 order declaring effect of the automatic stay regarding the debtors property including the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Israel which was signed on December 13, 2012.
With the transfer of the Israeli assets from ATP East Med to ATP in October 2013, one would think that the 40% interest in the Shimshon and Daniel licenses would have been preserved. June 2013 and October 2013 we still held these assets.
So maybe someone can help me understand what happened to the 35% interest in these fields? The dip didn’t get the assets and it appears Isramco did (35%) without paying ATP one dime, regardless of the Automatic Stay.
With the transfer of these assets from ATP East Med to ATP how does the court not preserve and protect these assets. Maybe just maybe the professionals in this case told the court these assets had no value. I remember one lady telling me they had no value.
Just me again, I don’t think folks understand my efforts in trying to preserve ATP Corporation as an entity. I speak of corporate governance denied to equity holders as third parties have made business decisions that only the board of directors could approve, and the lack of fiduciary responsibility by those third parties to equity holders, but the bottom line is if APT were to be preserved, where we equity holders maintained our ownership, with a new board of directors, we would have a vehicle to perform a postmortem on every element of this bankruptcy case.
There is no court protection against fraud and or intentional malice with regards to fiduciary responsibilities in bankruptcy cases. Dead corporations tell no stories, they just go away. No disclosed harm, no foul. For me it is hard to understand how only a few profited from this bankruptcy!
With a preserved ATP Corporation and new elected board they might have an interest in reviewing all of the documents,communications and deals and side deals made in this bankruptcy looking for elements of fraud and malice by the parties. How ATP can lose their 35% interest in these Israeli fields but still maintain the 5% interest is puzzling. How can we lose this 35% without a court hearing and or some notice made to equity holders? Is this remaining 5% the result of some deal that was made by the professionals in this case?
Isramco reported the Shimshon field likely contained 2.3 Tcf of gas and now the David fields reported at 8.9 Tcf; that totals 11.2 Tcf reported in these fields, then we learn that there was seismic data reported to have been completed in 2013, maybe just maybe if the DIP lenders would have allow monies to be spent developing these fields the outcome of this bankruptcy might have been different, but they. the DIP, would not have received the billions of dollars of assets they claimed and received in late 2013, they also tried to claim the Israeli assets at the eleventh hour.
And ATP”s 40% interest in the Israeli assets reduced to 5%, is this the result of deals, deals and more deals. Maybe just maybe no one cares, are we just sitting back with our fingers crossed hoping that we might receive a few pennies for our equity ownership.
Or maybe some might be mad as hell.
The subject at hand now is the reported 5% interest in the Daniel East and West offshore Israel fields. It was reported that the field could contain 8.9 trillion cubic feet (TCF) of natural gas. It also reported that “Gas reserves this size could significantly change the Israeli gas market”.
To give folks an idea about the size, this would be the third largest field off shore Israel; with Leviathan reported at 19 TCF and Tamar reported at 10 TCF, only these two fields are larger.
In comparison, ATP’s Shimshon discovery was reported at 0.55 TCF.
Israeli government documents show ATP with a 5% interest Shimshon and Daniel East and West fields.
It is interesting to me that after the Equity Security Holders Status Conference in 2014, Nancy Holley told me that this 5% interest in these Israeli fields wasn’t worth anything. Now it appears these assets could be worth hundreds of millions to ATP. Maybe just maybe these assets can now be sold and be used to pay off the DIP.
It appears to me that quick math suggests a $950 Million value for ATP; with ATP selling and getting a 50% value minimum ($475 million) paying the dip off and then starting to pay the bond holders just might become a reality. Leaving the BP claim left to be litigated and paid. Maybe just maybe Equity holders just might get paid a very handsome payout. This just builds my case with the Texas Secretary of State regarding ATP equity holders rights of Corporate Government have been denied.
Having send that, can someone tell me what happened to ATP East Med Israeli subsidiary asset which were. (These were interest in addition to the 5% for ATP corp.)
a. a 35% participating interest in the 332/Simshon License,
b. a 35% participating interest in the 391 Daniel West License, and
c. a 35% participating interest in the 392/Daniel East License
When ATP Netherlands was sold these assets were to be conveyed to ATP the Debtor. Thus, the entities in which the Israeli Assets were held, along with certain other Eastern Mediterranean entities, would remain property of the Debtor’s estate following the sale of ATP Netherlands.
With the Automatic Stay court document 1046, ATP should still hold these assets.
It appears to me Isramco somehow now owns the Israeli assets held by ATP East Med. So we lost the 35% interest; but somehow ATP Corp retained its 5% ownership interest.
How do you lose 35% and retain 5%, I don’t recall any court filing and or notice given equity holders that our 35% stake in these licenses were lost and or sold. Can you image if ATP still retained a 40% interest in these properties. Folks that would be a 40% interest in $19 billion dollars of value! The dip would not allow one penny to be spent on the development of these assets and BP should also be held accountable for these lost revenue opportunities from these lost assets. (Cause and affect)
To compare the value of natural gas vs. crude, there are about 1 million BTUs in an MCF of gas. (Thousand cubic feet of natural gas) and about 6 million BTUs in a barrel of oil.(Six to One) As a side note there are one million Btu in about 8 gallons of gasoline.
Current US price is $2.26 per MCF of natural gas and the Crude price today is $30.39 a barrel, the natural gas equivalent (6 to 1) $13.56 for 6 million BTU’s vs crude at $30.39 for 6 million BTU’s, which commodity has a bigger upside? Then compare the worldwide price for LNG today in Japan $8.50 per MCF. Any wonder why OPEC is willing to sell their crude at today’s low prices.
Timer Saver in Slidell LA today has gasoline at $1.36 a gallon. One million BTU of gasoline (8 gallons) would cost $10.88 vs natural gas for one million BTU’s today at $2.26. Which commodity has the bigger upside?
With the US now able to export natural gas and sell on the world market, which commodity has the bigger upside?
Natural gas power plants, natural gas transportation vehicles; those that down play the future value of natural gas should look at the potential value of the US exporting LNG to the world and those dollars coming back into this country. The balance of trade numbers will tilt back in favor of the US and the US economy will grow stronger. You should check out the prices paid for LNG around the world.
The comment “Gas reserves this size could significantly change the Israeli gas market”. They too may elect to export LNG to the world markets.
I was asked why I didn’t post my motion on the board; as my motion was quite long and I thought those that had an interest could read it on KCCLLC, of course my motion didn’t show up on KCCLLC, only the last two pages of my eight page document, which was the order I developed. Never the less the motion was denied, “In his motion, he misunderstands whether the derivative rights of shareholders under state law apply after a bankruptcy case has been commenced. Upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case, only the Trustee may sue for the Estate’s damages. State law giving derivative standing to shareholders is no longer applicable for redress for injuries to the Estate.”
As the motion was not seen by folks here, I have posted it below. I will take this issue up with the Texas Secretary of State as my claim is based on Equity holders rights denied.
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
In re: § Chapter 11 / 7
ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, § Case No: 12-36187
Debtor. § Hon. Marvin Isgur
A MOTION BY DOUGLAS A. MEYER, EQUITY HOLDER OF COMMON AND “PREFERRED” EQUITY SECURITIES IN ATP OIL AND GAS CORPORATION AND SECOND LIEN HOLDER OF ATP BONDS, IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEBTOR, ATP OIL AND GAS CORPORATIONS CIVIL SUIT; ATP OIL & GAS CORP. v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL, CASE NO. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.
Mr. Meyer through this Charter 11 and Chapter 7 case has voiced his concerns with his letters, objections and motions to the court regarding stockholders rights of corporate governance, fiduciary responsibility to equity holders, due process rights of equity holders and equity holders being disenfranchised. Mr. Meyer’s perception then and now is that those who have a fiduciary duty to equity holders just do not care. Their lack of action speaks louder than words as Mr. Meyer did not received one letter and or phone call concerning any of his letters, objections and motions. Professionals in this case must remember what caused ATP to file bankruptcy protection, that cause BP and the other defendants in Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
RELIEF REQUESTED
In January 2013, with the assistance of the Firms, ATP submitted a claim to BP under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 for loss of profits and earning capacity as a result of the Deepwater Horizon Spill in an amount “not less than” $3,011,534,889.00 (the “OPA Claim”). This BP claim was made prior to ATP’s loss of $3.6 billion of asset value through the course of the bankruptcy. ATP’s 2013 claim “not less than” $3.011 billion and ATP’s “loss” of $3.61 billion of asset value through bankruptcy, the claim, Mr. Meyer would think would and should grow to $6.62 billion.
On October 29, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing (the “Hearing”) for the benefit of certain equity holders of ATP Oil & Gas Corporation (the “Debtor”). At the Hearing, the Bankruptcy Court directed the “Trustee” to file a status report each ninety (90) days relating to the litigation styled ATP Oil & Gas Corp. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS pending before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. This litigation concerns the OPA claim of “not less than” $3,011,534,889.00.
During this hearing the court assured equity holders that they would be given an opportunity to be heard, if any settlement offer was presented to the court for approval. Certain equity holders are concerned with the potential value of this damage suit being negotiated away in settlement negotiations that the trustee might engage with BP and the others. With this motion Mr. Meyer an equity holders is asking the court to add all equity holders, as a group, in the above mentioned suit against BP and others; as a joinder to this civil action for damages. The motion also addresses five additional actions.
On January 27, 2015, the Trustee filed his 90-Day Status Report [Docket No. 3466] (the “First Ninety-Day Status Report”). In the First Ninety-Day Status Report, the Trustee reported that he attempted to meet with BP to discuss settlement or mediation of the Debtor’s claims against BP, but BP rejected the Trustee’s request.
On April 28, 2015, the Trustee filed his Second 90-Day Status Report on BP Litigation [Docket No. 3527] (the “Second Ninety-Day Status Report”). At the time of the Second Ninety Day Status Report, the Trustee reported that he was working with “his” counsel in the BP litigation, Motley Rice, LLC, to prepare a motion to be filed in the United States District Court Case 12-36187 (Document 3586) for the Eastern District of Louisiana to lift the current stay on discovery and seek authority for the Debtor’s estate to proceed with discovery in the BP Litigation.
On April 28, 2015, the Trustee filed his Supplement to Second 90-Day Status Report on BP Litigation (Docket No. 3528) Exhibit A to the Supplement was a copy of the Motion to Lift Stay and Provide Direction for Limited Reference to Bankruptcy Court (the “Motion”) filed by the Trustee on April 27, 2015 in the BP Litigation.
On July 24,2015 the Trustee filed his Third 90-Day Status Report on BP Litigation [Docket No. 3586] (the “Third Ninety-Day Status Report”). The Trustee reported that since the filing of the Second Ninety-Day Status Report and the Supplement, the District Court where the BP Litigation is pending has taken no action on the Motion, and the Trustee is not able to predict when the District Court will take any action on the Motion. In effect, the BP Litigation remains status quo with the case stayed and no discovery allowed.
As of November 15, 2015, the Fourth required 90 reporting has not been filed with the court. Regardless of the court’s order the trustee has not filed the required reporting. This fact is concerning to equity holders. This lack of action amplifies Mr. Meyer’s comments made in the first paragraph.
ATP Oil & Gas Corporation was the damaged party in Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS against BP and others and the Chapter 7 trustee dissolved the Texas Corporation, ATP Oil and Gas without due process involving the owners of the corporation and the requirements of the Texas Business Corporation Act, Involuntary Dissolution. The potential claim of $3.01billion should have been enough to preserve the corporation. This dissolution was done without a vote and approval of the equity holders and there was never a hearing in the bankruptcy court regarding the dissolution where equity holders could object as required by Texas Business Corporation Act. On January 20, 2014 ATP Oil and Gas filed their yearly Resignation of Registered Agent. On June 2, 2014 the Office of the Secretary of State of Texas issued a certificate of involuntary termination of ATP Oil and Gas Corporation. Stating the entity has failed to maintain a registered agent or registered office address. This required yearly filing was done in January 2014; the document was signed by Mr. Paul Bulmahn. The trustee chose the path where ATP Oil and Gas would be Involuntary Terminated as a Texas Corporation without due process to the equity holders. This tactic to disenfranchise equity holders was also used in having the SEC delist ATP’s securities. Those professionals who were to have a fiduciary responsibility to ATP equity holders were also included in the correspondence between the SEC and Mr. Meyer regarding the delisting activity. This action amplifies Mr. Meyer’s comments made in the first paragraph.
By the actions of the professionals who have a fiduciary responsibility to the equity holders, the owners of ATP Oil and Gas, and have demonstrated their disregard for process and procedure requirements of the Texas Business Corporation Act; including Involuntary Dissolution section 7.12 B., Mr. Meyer asks the court to consider “general rights of succession” and equity holders should be added as a joinder to this case. Whether a shareholder of a forfeited corporation may sue individually or derivatively on behalf of the corporation to enforce a right belonging to the corporation has been addressed in a number of cases over the years. Forfeiture of a corporation’s charter does not prohibit stockholders from obtaining relief and redressing wrongs that injure their right and interest in corporate assets including seeking relief as a damaged party, the owner of the forfeited corporation, in civil damage suits brought by corporation prior to forfeiture.
ATP Oil & Gas Corporation was the damaged party in Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS against BP and others. This civil action is not an “Asset” of the debtor estate in the true meaning of the word. By itself there is no value where commercial lenders would use the possible outcome of this civil action as collateral for any commercial loan, nor would any bonds be sold based on a possible outcome and vendors would not grant credit terms based on this action. In addition to the suit of $3,011,534,889.00 (claim) against BP and others, ATP Oil and Gas Corporation lost $3.62 billion of asset value in this bankruptcy! This lost asset value through bankruptcy should also be claimable. None of the commercial lenders, nor the bondholders and the creditors in this bankruptcy case saw any value in this suit, as none were willing to wait for the possible outcome of this civil suit to receive payment. They were not a damaged party in this civil suit.
This motion is to insure equity holders have a voice as a damaged party in this civil suit against BP and others. First, in insuring that ATP’s claim of not less than $3.01 billion is not negotiated away for the benefit of a few who hold no plaintiff status, and second to insure that ATP’s $3.61 billion of lost assets through bankruptcy are also included in this suit for damages.
This motion asks the court to:
A) As owners of ATP Oil and Gas and a damaged party in this civil action Mr. Meyer asks the court to add the “group” of equity holders as a joinder, plaintiff, to ATP Oil & Gas Corp. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS pending case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
B) In addition to ATP’s claim of “not less than” $3,011,534,889.00; ATP’s $3.61 billion of lost assets through bankruptcy is to be included in this suit for damages.
C) As owners of ATP Oil and Gas and a damaged party to this civil action, the court will appoint a legal representative that will assume a fiduciary responsibility to the equity holders, owners of ATP Oil and Gas; and actively participate as counsel for the debtor, and the equity holders, both damaged parties in this civil action.
D) That legal representative shall manage the legal team hired to present our case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and actively participate in any settlement negotiations between the parties. They will preserve and protect the value of this case to the benefit of the estate and all stakeholders. They will insure the damaged parties in this case receive the justice they seek and will not be pressured into a settlement for the benefit of a few who hold no plaintiff status in this case.
E) I would suggest that the court appoint the Counsel to ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, Mayer Brown LLP, Charles Kelley, Howard S Beltzer and Frederick D Hyman, who have been the counsel to the debtor, ATP Oil and Gas and who has maintained their fiduciary responsibility to ATP Oil & Gas and those that managed the estate in the chapter 11 process. As ATP Oil and Gas Corporation has been involuntary terminated and Mayer Brown still remains counsel to ATP Oil and Gas, they still have a fiduciary responsible to the equity holders, owners of ATP.
F) As ATP Oil and Gas Corporation has been involuntary terminated as a Texas Corporation and without corporate governance I ask the court to allow the Official Committee of Equity Holders to act on behave of the equity ownership group. The court appointed “legal representative” would have the fiduciary responsibility to this committee of equity holders. That committee has been established and if those members are no longer equity holders and or have no interest in serving, the court shall replace these members with equity holders that have an interest in serving on the committee. The court would appoint these replacement members based on equity holders nominations to the court.
ATP case against BP is being handled by Motley Rice LLC and Fayard & Honeycutt. I believe these firms will do an excellent job representing ATP and the owners of the corporation the damaged parties. In addition to their fiduciary responsibility to the court, I believe they also have a fiduciary responsibility to the equity holders, as owners of APT Oil & Gas Corporation. This fiduciary responsibility may be conflicted when confronted with a settlement negotiation; what might be acceptable to the trustee might not be acceptable to the damaged parties.
Equity holders feel compelled to seek this motion to insure as owners of ATP and a damaged party in this civil case, their “due process rights” are protected. The potential claim of $3.01billion should have been enough to preserve the corporation. Regardless of the reasons the professionals in this case might have had, they disenfranchised equity holders and disregarded ATP’s articles of incorporation and the Texas Business Corporation Act, along with ATP equity holder’s rights to corporate governance.
WHEREFORE, Mr. Meyer respectfully requests that the Court enter an order granting the relief requested herein and such other and further relief as is just and proper. Mr. Meyer reserves his rights to supplement and amend this Motion at any time and to raise any other arguments in respect of the proposed Motion. In addition, certain issues raised in Objections could, arguably, also implicate other facets of the above-captioned case. Accordingly, in an abundance of caution, Mr. Meyer, in all of his capacities as an equity holder in ATP Oil and GAS Corporation, reserves all of his rights in the above-reference cases, and nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver of any such rights.
Dated: November 16, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
Douglas A. Meyer
429 Suncrest Loop West
Slidell, LA 70458
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
In re: § Chapter 11 / 7
ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, § Case No: 12-36187
Debtor. § Hon. Marvin Isgur
ORDER APPROVING THE MOTION OF DOUGLAS A. MEYER, EQUITY HOLDER OF COMMON AND “PREFERRED” EQUITY SECURITIES IN ATP OIL AND GAS CORPORATION GRANTING ATP EQUITY HOLDERS JOINDER STATUS IN ATP OIL AND GAS CORPORATIONS CIVIL SUIT; ATP OIL & GAS CORP. v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL, CASE NO. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED PENDING BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.
Came on for consideration the Motion filed by Douglas A. Meyer, equity holder in ATP Oil and Gas Corporation and after considering the Motion and any response thereto, and being of the opinion that said motion should be granted; it is hereby ORDERED THAT:
A) As owners of ATP Oil and Gas and a damaged party in this civil action, ATP Equity holders shall be added as a joinder, plaintiff, in ATP Oil & Gas Corp. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-01962-CJB-SS pending case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
B) ATP’s $3.61 billion of lost assets through bankruptcy shall be included in this suit for damages.
C) The court will appoint a legal representative that will assume a fiduciary responsibility to the equity holders, owners of ATP Oil and Gas; actively participating as counsel for the debtor, ATP Oil and Gas and the equity holders.
D) That legal representative shall manage the legal team hired to present ATP’s case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and actively participate in any settlement negotiations between the parties. They will preserve and protect the value of this case to the benefit of the estate and all stakeholders. They will insure the damaged parties in this case receive the justice they seek and will not be pressured into a settlement for the benefit of a few who hold no plaintiff status in this case.
E) That legal representative shall be Counsel to ATP Oil & Gas Corporation, Mayer Brown LLP, Charles Kelley, Howard S Beltzer and Frederick D Hyman, who have been the counsel to the debtor, ATP Oil and Gas and who has maintained their fiduciary responsibility to ATP Oil & Gas and those that managed the estate in the chapter 11 process. As ATP Oil and Gas Corporation has been involuntary terminated and Mayer Brown still remains counsel to ATP Oil and Gas, they still have a fiduciary responsible to the equity holders, owners of ATP.
F) As ATP Oil and Gas Corporation has been involuntary terminated as a Texas Corporation and without corporate governance the Official Committee of Equity Holders is to act on behalf of the equity ownership group. The court appointed “legal representative” would have the fiduciary responsibility to this committee of equity holders. This committee has been established and if those members are no longer equity holders and or have no interest in serving, the court shall replace these members with equity holders that have an interest in serving on the committee. The court would appoint these replacement members based on equity holders nominations to the court.
Signed this ___ day of ____________________, 2015
____________________________________
MARVIN ISGUR
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
Good evening all, it is a shame that my motion was never posted on the KKCCLLC web page for all to view.
Only the pages “of the order”; I included in my motion was posted.(see page numbers, court document 3658). You will see pages missing!!!!!!
Those pages missing of course “my motion”. Maybe just maybe, folks didn’t want other folks to read my motion.
Did anyone see the motion???? Hell, no one saw the motion!!!!
No hearing , just an order denying my motion. Not even a phone call and or letter. How do you like that justice????? Maybe just maybe, only justice for those willing to pay the legal system!!! ($600 an hour)
It would be interesting for you folks to write the court and ask for a copy of my motion that was denied. As no one saw it!
My next letter to the court; is to ask the court how much it will cost me to appeal the ruling. My bet thousands of dollars!!!!
Justice for only those that can pay!!!!!
It is a must read; Court document 3692. “Douglas A. Meyer seeks standing to sue for losses to ATP. In his motion, he misunderstands whether the derivative rights of shareholders under state law apply after a bankruptcy case has been commenced. Upon the commencement of a bankruptcy case, only the Trustee may sue for the Estate's damages. State law giving derivative standing to shareholders is no longer applicable for redress for injuries to the Estate.”
No dialog, just a ruling! Hells bells, derivative rights don't apply only when stockholders rights of corporate governance where “not denied”. You folks should have read the motion!!!!!
Anyway this is not over for me!!!
Good evening ……….. as we have now seen the recent court filings of the FOURTH NINETY-DAY STATUS REPORT ON THE BP LITIGATION filed on 11/17, our trustee has reported:
“The Trustee reports that since the filing of the Third Ninety-Day Status Report, the District Court still has taken no action on the Motion. The Trustee is not able to predict when the District Court will take any action on the Motion. In effect, the BP Litigation remains status quo with the case stayed and no discovery allowed.
The BP Litigation is one of the cases in MDL 2179. The District Court manages MDL 2179 and has selected five moratoria-related cases (the “OPA Test Cases”) to proceed and has stayed all other individual moratoria cases including the BP Litigation. Discovery in the OPA Test Cases remain underway in MDL 2179.”
Not much news from the court ordered update.
So here is some news regarding the test cases.
The OPA Causation Test Cases are: Seven not Five.
Bisso Marine Company, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., 13-0706.
Wadleigh Industries, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al, 13-0810.
Certified Platform Services, LLC v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., 13-1143.
Blake International USA Rigs, LLV v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al, 13-1185.
Trinity Offshore, LLC v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al, 13-1222.
Seahawk Liquidating Trust, et al v. BP Exploration & Production Inc., et al, 13-1386.
Black Elk Energy Offshore Operations, LLC v. BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al, 13-2006.
On November 13, 2015, there was a conference. Present were Duke Williams and Paul Sterbcow for the plaintiffs and Matt Regan for BP.
The OPA Test Cases were reviewed. The parties shall concentrate on the claims of three plaintiffs: Bisso Marine Company, Inc.; Wadleigh Industries, Inc.; and Blake International USA Rigs, LLV.
Bisso.
Document production for Bisso was certified as complete. Bisso shall promptly: (1) resolve clawback issues; (2) complete privilege logs; and (3) amend its responses to BP’s interrogatories. The parties shall meet-and-confer to schedule depositions of Bisso witnesses in January followed by depositions of BP’s witnesses.
Wadleigh and Blake.
Document production for Wadleigh and Blake is not complete. Their document production will be smaller than Bisso. Wadleigh and Blake shall: (1) complete their document production as promptly as possible, including preparation of privilege logs; and (2) amend their responses to BP’s interrogatories.
Stipulations.
The parties shall work on stipulations.
Prior Motions.
The parties shall file Rule 12 motions to dismiss as follows:
a. BP shall file a motion contending that the Moratoria claims must be dismissed for failure to state an OPA claim. The issue to be presented is whether BP can be held liable for damages flowing from government instituted actions such as imposition of a drilling moratorium or the government’s refusal to issue drilling permits.
b. The plaintiffs shall re-urge their motion to strike affirmative defenses, particularly any alleged “superseding cause” defense premised on governmental action or inaction following the spill.
The parties shall file these motions by Wednesday, December 16, 2015.
The oppositions shall be filed by Wednesday, January 6, 2016.
The replies shall be filed by Wednesday, January 20, 2016 following which the motions will be under submission.
Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment.
Following resolution of the motions itemized in paragraph 4, the Court may order the parties to file cross-motions for summary judgment in the three Test Cases regarding any remaining issues.
Next Conference.
There will be a further telephone conference on Monday, November 30, 2015, at 11:00 a.m. The Court will provide the dial-in information. Hell the trustee can dial in and listen!!!!!!
This information was obtained from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, public information. You be the judge if maybe, just maybe, the trustee could have shared more information in his 90 status report.
Now the fun,
Some may recall an earlier post reporting that the “The merits of the moratorium claims may effectively be decided as a legal issue raised by motion, after several bellwether trials.”
These three plaintiffs: Bisso Marine Company, Inc.; Wadleigh Industries, Inc.; and Blake International USA Rigs, LLV., would be considered bellwether trials. If these three cases are won, we may not see our case making its way to trial, the risk for us is the trustee negotiating away the value of our claim during this period of motions and positioning.
As I have filed my motion with the bankruptcy court regarding this legal action, that motion has not been posted as yet, I still have concerns which my motion addresses. In my heart and soul, I believe the trustee has no intent to help equity holders, I sure hope I am wrong.
Now for some good news, Bisso Marine being selected as one of the three cases, their corporate attorney is one of the best of the best in our area. If there is a way to win this case, he will find it, and they will fight for every dollar they are asking for. I wish I had as much confidence in our trustee as I do in Bisso’s attorney.
Wadleigh will also give them a good fight. It is going to be an interesting time.
For me it is time to step up.
Good evening ……… as most viewing this board, are also following the court filings. Today the trustee has filed his 90 day, quarterly update, on our case against BP and others.
As I have already mailed my motion to the court, I will be interested in those that read my motion when it appears and disagree with what I am asking of the court.
I can withdraw my motion. Please share as equity owners.
Regards
Doug
Good evening ……. Hope all is well with the folks reading this post. I did say I would be sending a letter to the court, but have decided that a letter just won’t cut the mustard. All of my letters resulted in nothing beneficial, as did my motions. I am not an attorney and my letters and motions lacked any legal preference, which was OK at the time, as I just felt better voicing my concerns.
On this day after veterans day and as an American and veteran of the Vietnam era who served as my father and grandfathers have done, one would think that our justice system would protect those of us that chose not to hire a legal mouth piece costing $350 an hour. (Most beneficial for those lawyers that are slow readers, as they can rack up more billable hours.)
Today, maybe just maybe, the phase” he who represents himself in court is a fool” was originally set in stone by the legal community as fair warning.
The problem is normal folks can’t afford legal representation therefore are passive and go with the flow.
Judges, maybe just maybe, are really just judging the performance of lawyers, the lawyer who presents the best legal argument. Knowing that one side had really missed the opportunity to present a winning argument based on the law, but didn’t present that argument, therefore loses.
The shame is the judge knows the law, but didn’t act because the lack of a legal argument by one party. Shame, shame, shame, glad I am not the judge in that debate. Justice is blind unless you have a great legal presentation, salesmanship, salesmanship, salesmanship even if your pitch is BS. And if no one calls you on your BS, guess what… you win.
And the judge, is just the judge in this debate. And folks like me don’t have the legal knowledge to call one on their BS, therefore we always lose. I like to say blow off by the court as a fool.
We in business all know of the “lessons learned analogy” of after the fact, we should have done this and or that. We failed here but we had success there. For lawyers, you really missed this, you should have presented this argument but didn’t, and the crime the judge knew, but hell, someone has to win and someone has to lose. They are just judging the debate. They can't help one side and not the other regardless of the law and BS presented.
Thanks for letting me get this off my chest, I do feel better, even though some may think I am nuts. But it is election time and this makes most of us a little nuts.
Back to the task at hand, no letter to the court, just a motion which I will be mailing to the court on Saturday. Hopefully those that have an interest will see it posted on the courts web page Wednesday or Thursday. If you agree and or disagree please write the court after viewing.
Always, always, always give folks the opportunity to do the right thing. I think after reading my motion you will understand the comment.
You all have a great weekend.
Doug
Good Evening,
We have sixty three followers on this site, would you please sign in?
Doug
Thanks for your post,I also own bonds.
Good evening ……………… as I was expecting to see the court ordered quarterly reporting on the BP status filed no later than last Friday and as that 3rd quarter report has not been filed as we enter the second month of the fourth quarter, one has to wonder what might be up. This alone really doesn’t mean anything, but when you add other factors maybe just maybe something just might be in the works.
For me my enquiries into the test cases have stalled, this could mean folks are tired of me pressing them for information or court ordered confidentially agreements of the folks, including ATP, that know, might restrict them from addressing my questions and or the filing of status reports; in ATP’s case.
I find it usual that my enquiries have struck a brick wall and we have not seen a status report filing. I have recently started preferencing my questions to law firms with “I hate to be a pest”, but could you tell me ……..! It is easier to tell me later after the deal is done, Doug, you were not a client and I couldn’t share that information with you. And that won’t be the first time I have been told that.
Adding; the trustee now declaring a fiduciary responsibility to equity holders makes one wonder. Maybe just maybe this whole thing is just wishful thinking on my part, BUT SOMETHING JUST MIGHT BE IN THE WORKS.
BP increased the amount set aside to pay for the spill to $53.8 billion. That still may not be enough. I am told by one firm that “It’s realistic to price BP’s total cost, including all remaining claims that haven’t been covered by settlements, north of $70 billion.
One party in the test trial is the successor to Seahawk Drilling and claims the business was “essentially destroyed” and forced into bankruptcy. Seahawk alleges losses of $174.8 million. ATP’s initial claim was for not less than $3 billion. If the test cases prevail, there could be billions of dollars more in claims from firms including Marathon Oil Co., which seeks $47 million for lost offshore production, and Vantage Drilling Co., which is claiming $265 million for increased financing costs tied to projects delayed by the offshore ban. The list goes on and on. Looking at the legal costs to date and the estimated costs in the near future; this time next year today’s estimate of north of $70 billion might exceed north of $100 billion.
We may be at a point in time where BP is trying to establish what the dollar value of all of the remaining claims against them and try to resolve them as they did with the gulf state’s settlement.
I would think any group settlement may result in a percentage of the claim value. My question would be with the initial claim of not less than $3 billion and the additional loss of bankruptcy, what might be ATP’s total claim against BP today. I will be asking the bankruptcy court that question in the coming days.
Anyway this is all speculation on my part, still moving forward day by day, the equity holders are the owners of ATP regardless how you slice it. Maybe just maybe the trustee see’s something in the future that might suggest this recent interest in declaring his fiduciary responsibility to equity holders.
Hell he might end up being everyone’s hero in this case. And I might add very, very, rich.
Sometimes one has to wonder if what they are doing really matters, you look for little signs that might suggest some improvement and yesterday’s filing court document 3633 might offer us a little hope and I mean a just a little.
I have read a lot of court documents submitted by the trustee and filing 3633 is different from the rest. Read section 15: Court document 3633
CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR AUTHORITY TO PAY P2ES HOLDINGS, LLC
[url]15. For the Trustee to satisfy his “fiduciary duty to the debtor, creditors and equity holders, there must be some articulated business justification for using, selling, or leasing the property outside the ordinary course of business.” In re ASARCO LLC, 441 B.R. 813, 823 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (citing cases).
[/url][tag]insert-text-here[/tag]
This is the first that I can remember, where the trustee speaks of his fiduciary duty to “Equity Holders”. Just me, this is a breakthrough! How many filings have we read where anyone in this case speaks of a fiduciary responsibility to “equity holders”???????
So I am asking “Why Now” would we see this?????
I am sure the best of the best in the Houston / New Orleans legal community know each other and I have a few friends that some would say are the best of the best. I surely can’t afford hiring them but have no problem asking them a few questions and seeking their opinion. Maybe just maybe they might be asking a few questions themselves?????
As I have been trying to find a legal means to give equity holders some say in “any” negotiated settlement with BP; I have made a number of “cold calls”. These calls were soliciting a possible legal means to the “fact” that “equity holders” have been disenfranchised from the process, due process denied. It is hard to argue that point when ATP still maintained a board of directors, when the board resigned leaving the court appointed reorganization officer as the only board member this all changed.
At that point, when the ATP board resigned, ATP articles of incorporation were discarded and equity holder’s rights of corporate governance were denied. Provisions and requirements to replace the board were ignored and decisions effecting ATP’s that would require ATP board approval were made by court appointed officials without equity holder’s approval. By not replacing the board of directors when all resigned was corporate governance denied, by not filing the required SEC documents which resulted in the stock being delisted was corporate governance denied. By terminating and dissolving ATP as a business operating in the state of Texas was again corporate governance denied. These were not court ordered activities, these were activities done by court appointed officials, disenfranchising equity holders rights of corporate governance and due process.
I have pointed out numerous examples of the Chief Reorganization Officer and the trustee, where I believe, their actions have disenfranchised “equity holders”. These actions are in the public records and in violation of ATP’s articles of incorporation. I am also on the record with the SEC in my concerns regarding the cancellation of our securities. And with numerous filings, I am also on the record with the court in Houston regarding the Chapter 11 and Chapter 7 bankruptcies. Some will argue what difference does it make ?????
I would say the same thing if it we not for this single “Fact”. Early in this process ATP filed a claim against BP for over $3 Billion dollars. If BP would have manned up and paid the claim no bankruptcy. Because BP refused to pay the claim, ATP file a lawsuit against BP for not less than $3 billion and some change, which was early in the bankruptcy. If and when the value of this suit was to be paid, ATP would be made whole again.
This is a mathematical fact and just for that reason alone ATP should have been allowed the continuation of corporate governance. The Bankruptcy Court did not order any of these actions by the court appointed officers and trustee. With the trustee yesterday speaking of his fiduciary duty to equity holders, that duly also includes insuring that equity holders, the legal owners of ATP, are not disenfranchised from their rights of corporate governance.
The Bankruptcy court, the trustee, the creditors and all the paid professionals were not named as a party with ATP in this suit against BP. They were not damaged by BP in this suit, only ATP and who is ATP the equity holders. This is a legal fact. The only rights these folks have to the monies that will be paid from this suit, is in the claims they have against ATP and for services approved by the court. To suggest that equity holders, those damaged by BP, have no rights in any settlement negotiations is morally wrong.
And for a twist I believe some of the folks I know in the legal community, the best of the best if you will can make a case with Federal District Court, Judge Barbier, that during the course of this suit the legal entity ATP has been dissolved without a bankruptcy court order and or approval of the ATP equity holders, therefore the damaged party rights in this suit of the “Dissolved ATP” should pass down to the legal owners at the time ATP was dissolved, these folks are the “Real Damaged Party” the disenfranchised owners of the plaintiff ATP. It is very clear in ATP’s articles of incorporation that in the case of bankruptcy is not a requirement that business is to be dissolved. Of course it would be interesting to hear how these disenfranchised owners were denied their corporate governance rights in Judge Barbier court in New Orleans making their case for these rights of damage against BP.
Wouldn’t it be the cat’s meow, if a legal means could be presented to Judge Barbier that passed the damaged party rights in this case against BP to the legal owners of the dissolved ATP? I would also be willing to bet the equity holders can’t be legally “on the hook” to pay any of the creditors and or paid professionals in the bankruptcy case. Talking about “Just Reward”.
And now the best part, with a $3 Billion dollar carrot out there, that we would not have to share with the bankruptcy court, one would think we could find the best of the best to represent equity holders. Maybe just maybe some might be having second thoughts about disenfranchising equity holders and denying them the rights of corporate governance.
And saving the best part for last, I am told as of two weeks ago BP has zero interest in settling any of these cases, which gives us a lot of time to make a case in Judge Barbier’s court. Hell there is no rush.
And in closing, if you happen to know in your legal community the best of the best, you might have a dialog with them, be sure you tell them about the $3 Billion dollar carrot.
Roman,
Thanks for your post.
Just wondering how many of us are left looking at these posts????
Would like to know who is tuned in, as I have a post that might be better served private.
Those viewing, please sign in as watching the posts and would like additional information.
Roman, if no know cares I will send you my post privately.
Doug
Good Evening,
Roman, thanks for your post!
Hope everyone is doing OK. I have been seeking to find some legal representation to help me with my efforts in Equity Holders having some say in any negotiations with BP. Not sure if I will be successful but have not received any thing that might suggest this to be a lost cause.
It appears there are a number of moratorium related OPA suits against BP out there and I am told that there has not been an interest by BP to settle any of these type cases. I had thought with no word regarding the seven test cases BP might be trying to negotiate a settlement with these type of cases.
I am also told the Federal courts have many tools at their disposal to help resolve mass tort litigation, that is, litigation in which many people have sustained injuries arising out of the same general conduct. One of these tools is known as a ‘bellwether trial.’ The seven OPA moratorium “test cases” would be deemed “bellwether trails.
When a judge elects to use bellwether trials, the judge and the parties generally select a representative sample of cases, between five and ten for example, that will be fully prepared and tried to a jury. These selected cases, known as ‘bellwether cases,’ are typically representative of issues that will arise in every injured person’s case.
The goal of a bellwether process is to give all interested parties a good indication of what is likely to happen in future trials and to advance the litigation in a timely manner. (I guess the definition timely manner is different from what most folks think “timely manner” means) How long has this thing been going on???
A few jury verdicts in bellwether trials provide the judge and the interested parties with enough information to determine whether groups of cases should be settled, and if so, what might be a reasonable dollar range for settlements; therefore these moratorium claims may effectively be decided as a legal issue raised by motion, after several bellwether trials.
ATP’s claim would be substantial being over 3 billion dollars and my thought; BP would be better off eliminating ATP claim with some sort of settlement before any of these seven test cases went to trail, therefore reducing the total claims dollar number and bringing the average down to what might be a reasonable dollar range to pay off plaintiff’s claims if BP were to lose.
For plaintiffs not chosen to take part in the bellwether trial, that would be ATP, at times it may appear as though their case is not progressing, while not all plaintiffs are directly involved in the day to day aspects of the bellwether trial, the work the attorneys and judge are doing relates to all cases, not just those on file and selected as bellwether cases. I would think other plaintiffs would want ATP claim in the mix to determine a higher reasonable range.
I have said from the beginning there will be one party who will receive the highest payout if BP loses these cases. Our greatest fear is BP and the trustee reach a settlement that does not include the equity holders.
To hear that there has not as yet been any interest by BP in a settlement as they are still digesting the bitter pill of payments to various state and federal governments is good news in effect. (Roman's post)
Hopefully I will find some legal argument that can be presented to give equity holders some say if a negotiated settlement is reached before a court award is ordered.
You all have a great evening.
Good afternoon ........ hope everyone is doing great.
Just me, but it is "Now" time to re engage.
Will have a few questions next week to ask equity holders.
You all have a great weekend.
Good evening …… it has been a while since I have posted anything here. Have been reading the posts from time to time though.
To me, one of the more important recent developments was reported in the Supplement to Second 90-Day status report on the BP Litigation.
The trustee filed a motion in the District Court Eastern District of Louisiana, Judge Barbier, in our case against BP, Bankruptcy court document 3528.
In the memorandum filed with Judge Barbier, page two the trustee states ATP suffered a “STAGGERING” amount of damages from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill; I love the characterization of “STAGGERING”. In today’s world where a billion dollars doesn’t go as far as it once did, what amount might be “STAGGERING” to you, post-petition interest alone on the unpaid Dip loan is reported to be $120,000 a day.
For us bond holders, read page 13 of the memorandum, at least the bond holders got some print in the document. Creditors, creditors and creditors nothing about equity holders, the owners of the company, who were big losers and as owners of the company suffered a staggering amount of damages from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
If the trustee doesn’t find it necessary to mention the owners of the company in his memorandum, maybe just maybe Judge Barbier should be made aware of the damages to the owners.
The trustee makes a case against BP, too bad he is only concerned about the creditors.
And again I ask maybe for the thousandth time, who in this case is looking out for the equity holders?
Good evening ……… some folks were hell bent on getting ATP dissolved and the SEC registration pulled. They just couldn’t wait until the BP claim was resolved, before taking this action.
For me I want to make sure the motive for this action wasn’t to bury possible “secrets” and or acts of fraud committed. If ATP were to have survived and with the BP claim money making ATP whole again, there would have been financial resources available to investigate and insure there wasn’t any “Funny Business” going on here. How does $3 billion of assets disappear and not one pre-petition creditor gets paid. Some may think that a dissolved company “tells no tales” and therefore there will be no need to have every detail of this case looked at under a microscope. History keeps no secret’s sooner or later the truth always comes out.
For us equity holders the bottom line for us has always been the BP claim. Just me again, if the BP claim is settled, there is still a chance we will receive nothing. I believe if we go to trial our full claim will be awarded by the court and then the trustee and the court will be forced to pay us as our claim should leave a substantial balance to the estate.
Is I work and speak as a “common shareholder” I also own 2nd lien bonds and I also own “preferred shares”, my holdings of common shares is small compared to my bonds and preferred shares. If the commons get paid so does everyone else. Just because the corporation is dissolved doesn’t mean your ownership stake in the balance in the estate is lost. The court will have to pay equity holders the balance of the estate. But remember, common holders will be the very last and I mean the very last to be paid.
With the Supreme Courts refusing to hear the recent BP appeal, this might change everything. Remember there is no cap on what BP could have to pay. It should be interesting in this third phase of the trail starting in January, my guess BP will try and settle with the government.
Our seven test cases start in July 2015 and I don’t think BP will try and settle these cases. If these seven cases are won by the Plaintiffs, Check Mate!!!!
The first half of 2015 will be interesting.
For me I will be around until the end.
I guess my third letter to the SEC was not received. But that's OK, what do I think "just me" might accomplish!
Of course I will be sending the SEC another letter asking about the receipt of the third letter, which I might add was pretty good. Will also ask a few favors of folks in DC to follow up with the SEC on why my third letter wasn't acknowledged. Hell I never expected to change anything, but would like to see the system we "Trust" and have in place .....work.
The best part of all this which I learned from the SEC, ATP Corporation was dissolved with the State of Texas in June of this year. I ask, did any equity owner receive notice of this action from the court? I sure didn't. I will bet the court didn't know of this action. Any way the SEC has revoked our registration and the State of Texas has dissolved the corporation.
And the shame, someone, yes someone, (anyone want to guess who) just couldn't wait to have ATP dissolved and the registration revoked. How easy was it just to send the monthly operating report "officially" to the SEC and wait until the BP suit was settled before dissolving ATP.
What could the possible motivation be, did you also know the SEC was sent each month the notice of the monthly operating report being filed with the court, but again that report was not officially filed with the SEC. Hell rules are rules.
Anyway for me, even with the SEC revoking our registration and ATP being dissolved this thing is not over. Some day I will share my motivation to carry this on, believe me it is not about the money!!!!
Rockhard, Steven if you will allow me. Thanks for your post.
I too am a preferred holder; I also own bonds and common shares. This thing is far from over.
You ask about Fortune Natural Resources and their filings, they have filed an appeal to the 363 sale to the Dip Lenders, that appeal is to be heard in a different court.
I have been watching this appeal from the date of filing and I am not sure if they have made a deal as yet to remove their appeal. I have no inside information and rely on public disclosures, therefore I may have misses something as I am a staff of one with a full time job.
I believe they have a hearing in the bankruptcy court regarding their claim against the estate, which has nothing to do with the appeal. That hearing is set for the first week of December; my plan is to attend that hearing to ask questions regarding the appeal. The parties might strike a deal prior to the December hearing, which Fortune would more than likely remove their appeal.
You may recall Anadarko also filed an appeal to the 363 sale; they struck a deal with the dip to remove their appeal.
It is amazing to believe one could appeal a ruling and argue the merits for that appeal, then just as quick walk away with a deal. It is not about right or wrong or even about the “law”, it’s about making a deal.
My hope is there is no deal with Fortune, and they Fortune see their appeal through with the 363 sale vacated. Wouldn’t that be a twist? Folks just might want to follow this appeal.
As always, you all come down to New Orleans, today 70 degree temps the weekend temps will also be in the 70”s.
Marriner 70 thanks for your post, I see this is your first post.
Buy. short or long.
For me I am not selling my holdings.
Good luck.
Any update?? Here goes, some will recall the SEC initial finding to revoke the registration of ATP securities, I believe I have discussed this situation here.
As I sent a response to the SEC including follow up letters, I received a packet from the SEC; a motion in ATP’s Administrative Proceeding to not treat shareholders letters as an answer, motion for entry of finality order and brief in support.
This is a “Final” proceeding to revoke ATP’s registration. The violation for removal, as ATP has not filed timely financial information. If finality is ordered, no more trading in ATP securities, as the motion states “revocation will serve the purpose of ending any possible manipulation of the market for, or fraud in the trading of, ATPAQ securities based on the bankruptcy proceedings. For me, if one is trying to manipulate this stock for their own personal gain, at the expense of others, they need to go to jail. But seriously who manipulates a stock where a $39.50 gain might be obtained, there has been no volume trading in this stock to warrant this concern.
Anyway I have been spending my time trying to understand why my letter’s, yes more than one, has warranted such a motion. In section B of the motion (a). states; “the shareholder letters should be stricken from the record or, at a minimum, not treated as an answer filed by ATPAQ, because Mr. Meyer has no power to represent ATPAQ in this Proceeding.
Hell, I can understand Mr. Meyer has no power to represent ATPAQ in this proceeding, but my letters stricken from the record has me puzzled. Why would anyone suggest my letters “should be stricken from the record”, stricken from the record; as if my letters where never sent and my concerns never expressed. Do I still live in the United States or have we been taken over by aliens.
I would be happy to email anyone a pdf of the motion if they would like a copy. My hope would be you would voice your concerns regarding this motion with the SEC Administrative Judge. Why would one even suggest that “the shareholder letters should be stricken from the record”.
Corruption in is this country is destroying us, here in Louisiana a week doesn’t go by without a public official, US Representative, federal district attorney, judge, and a variety of other public servants crossing that grey line, disgracing themselves and hurting their families all in the name of greed. I am sure this is no different from where you live.
I am sorry but my first thought when someone suggest that “the shareholder letters should be stricken from the record”, what the hell is going on!!!
I will be filing an objection to the motion with the SEC Judge.
On another note, did you know that there are only 24 hours in a day. Is it possible that folks might have been billed in excess of the capacity restriction of a 24 man hour day???
Capacity planning has also been a concern in business planning, man hour restriction's, billing records with one client might represent one data set and appear fair and reasonable, add the data points with all of the other clients and the resources available to support those billings for that time period just might present a different picture. I don't believe billing records of clients represents attorney client privilege. Fraud is never ever protected by a courts order. Oh, did you know its perfectly legal to cross the grey area until you get caught. Hell nobody cares.
Look again at the billing records of this Chapter 7 case, good luck to those that have crossed the line. I might suggest those with more to lose than just money contact Judge Isgur, consider risk and reward; are you making $650.00 an hour???
RockHard …. thanks for your post ….. I own bonds; hundreds of thousands, I also own preferred shares, millions of dollars, of course face value and not market value which would be the value of a dinner for two in New Orleans today.
I also own common shares which I purchased to have a voice as a common holder,and as I speak today, which I know will be the last to be paid in this case. This thing goes a lot deeper than just the BP claim. Just remember ATP had three billion dollars of assets and not one pre-petition creditor got paid.
I have said over and over; nobody cares about the equity holders, I do believe the judge cares but who presented a legal argument, it wasn’t the equity holder’s legal representation. And today court document 3387, questioning the legal billing records of the Chapter 7 folks.
I have been working on my own objection to these charges, which would be mailed Monday! So this 3387 filing seems very interesting. Please read this filing.
What is interesting:
Question, who might Ms. Robbins report to?? To you think it might be the US Attorney General???
Do you think Nancy could have filed this in her own name????
Folks need to look at the entire professional fees post-petition” filed and paid in this case.
Maybe just maybe we are experiencing the calm before the storm this past week. Millions of dollars were paid to professionals, attorneys, in this case, professionals that were to work for the different parties, parties who never got paid, but the professionals did. I’m sure everyone here knows first and second year attorney’s and the pressure of billing put upon these folks. They all want to make partner, but need billings to support that status.
Does anyone think some of these billing records just might be fraudulent, meaning billings inflated by legal firm’s rigid billing requirements of associates? But to make ones case, you need a partner billing his time in access of logic, 10 hours on a Saturday and additional hours on a Sunday. A weekend spent with friends who are really not friends but opportunist; you have to smile, really need to think about who your friends really are. Maybe just maybe, these attorneys were dreaming about the case in their sleep and felt they could bill us for this dream sleep. Just a tip to those that might have an interest, folks making $9.50 an hour don’t care about you making $650.00 an hour.
And those that think they are getting away with crossings over the grey line, they need to rethink that logic, you really need to go back to work on Monday, look at those folks you work with, and judge who is going to throw you under the bus. Start with who you are abusing or those secretly wanting your job.
But my interest today is in the side show which might be more interesting, Fortune Natural Resources filings, court documents 2762, 2800, and 2920.
Anyone want to comment on these Fortune Natural Resources filings and what this might mean?
With all of this you all have a great weekend, go LSU over the Tide and the Saints "will win" over the 49'ers here in New Orleans.
If you haven't tailgated at LSU and or the New Orleans Saints you haven't lived. You all come down, let me show you Southern Hospitality, grilled oyster's at their best.
Good afternoon ………. Some may think “what the hell is he thinking” filing this last objection, court document 3381.
We have lost $3 billion dollars of assets with this bankruptcy case, a bankruptcy caused by the BP and others. This $3 billion dollar bankruptcy loss, I believe, should be claimable in our suit against BP, adding to our $3 billion dollar claim. ($6 Billion, total)
To have the trustee suggest that ATP management was the cause of our bankruptcy and or made the damage worse will not help our case against BP.
I think the trustee is after the officers and directors insurance policy, he may get a few millions dollars from the insurance company if he can convince the court his claims are true, but at what price to our suit against BP.
Therefore my objection!
You all have a great weekend.
Good afternoon ……… thanks to all that sent letters to the court, seriously without your letters this status conference would not have happened. I believe Judge Isgur understood this was a “public” effort to get equity holders to voice their concerns. This conference was scheduled by the judge and not by the trustee and or the attorneys. I think Judge Isgur sent a very clear message to these folks. Thanks also to all that called in and thanks to Tyler for being there.
I believe I have a better understanding of the hierarchy and the interaction between the court and the trustee and the attorneys as Judge Isgur stated “he did not hire the trustee”. I think it was pretty clear by the comments from the judge; equity holders do have rights in this case. Those that listened to the conference may have heard some of those rights.
I will be ordering a written transcript of the hearing, which I would like to share key points in the dialog, here. I want to voice my understanding of these points, you may have a different prospective and I would like to hear your take.
The judge ordered the trustee to publish and post a periodic update on ATP’s case against BP. The court also ordered the trustee to send that update to three of us equity holders as he understands we would definitely make that information available to other equity holders in our “public” efforts.
Tyler and I had the opportunity to speak with the trustee and the US attorney after the meeting. I will be writing those folks thanking them for their time and what we “generally discussed”, just to confirm our dialog. It was an interesting dialog and will be checking elements of our conversation regarding the Israeli assets, ATP IP (Innovator) and the selling of ATP’s shell, along with the remaining dip loan interest and the effort to recover ATP assets. We also briefly discussed the BP claim, more on my part than theirs, as the current company I work for has a claim against BP as does our largest customer, who happens to be one of the seven test cases. Not to suggest that I know anything “first hand” regarding our customers case, which I don’t.
In our hall discussion I was trying to ask as many questions as I could think of, not knowing what one might hear. The federal attorney, I think, has some very strong views regarding dissolving ATP.
Mr. Lee (Diamond) was at the hearing but did not participate in our “hallway” discussion. I did get an introduction from him as I left.
Again thanks to everyone.
Good evening …… I will be driving to the meeting on Wednesday, will be stopping to see our horse on my way back from Houston, trying to arrive at the court around 12:30. Can’t wait to meet Mr. Rubio and Mr. Lee, and of course to meet Mr. Tow!
Will have an objection to file when I arrive; folks might want to be concerned about today’s filing and what this might mean.
Court document 3378, Amended (look at what was amended). I have a problem with this document. Folks need to read this document, sort of like “Oh by the way”!
My problem is the following;
“including any actions that otherwise would require further approval by the Debtor’s board of directors or board of managers, as the case may be, without the need of obtaining such approvals;”
And remember if they “Had This Power”,to act for the board of directors, they would not be asking for it here. Don’t give them this power.
It seems these folks really don’t care about anyone here but the DIP and themselves getting paid, read the billing report.
Wednesday will be interesting, I do hope equity holders will show up in force. There are a few folks that could hop on their corporate jets and fly in, just hope to see you there; I think you know who you are!!! Show up! You have more to lose than any of us.
We need 10% of the equity holders. Who thinks TPaul will be there????
The prepetition creditors should be screaming at their legal representation and Bond Holders should be asking about who might get paid and who won’t??????
The Dip (read the legal billings) and trustee; just might be willing to give away the BP claim, just to pay a few post-petition and of course themselves. God knows everyone should get paid. Let me say this again, everyone should get paid with this BP claim. And again, let me say this one more time, everyone should get paid with this BP claim.
Just me, if things DON’T go well, we always have the District Court in New Orleans and the Johns-Manville bankruptcy case rulings. If the trustee says we equity holders have no rights, let’s see what the District Court in New Orleans might say, I believe there are numerous “High Profile” legal firms that might want a piece of our case, based on Johns-Manville. The BP claim is not an asset, it is a litigation.
This thing is not over; you all have a great evening and hope to see you in Houston.
Psleeper thanks for your email.
To give you some insight, read the legal billing records, it is like looking for a needle in a hay stack but when you find the needle it is worth it.
Just me, but the lawyers seem to me to be off the reservation here along with the trustee.
The judge is questioning where is the money coming from to get all of these folks paid. Since Chapter 7, almost $400K in legal bills.
The billing records give you some of the interaction with the judge as these folks are doing thing and or trying to do things without the courts approval.
This thing is far from over!!!!!
Thanks for your post. Normally I plan for the worst but hope for the best, for some strange reason and I can’t explain why, I think Roman was right. I do believe the judge might just be in our corner.
Some may have found the recent court filings that the trustee’s attorneys have filed to get themselves paid. We have one group looking for payments of over $300K and another group looking for $69K plus change.
For the last three days I have been researching these billing records. Have others looked at these records?
I would suggest that folks spend about an hour and read these billings.Some just might find their names listed in these records.
But did folks know that there are parties interested in purchasing the remaining ATP assets. The Israeli assets appear to be a hot topic along with parties interested in purchasing the ATP shell.
If you have a few minutes check it out.
Next week will be an interesting week. You all have a great evening.
And they speak of the BP claim!!!!
Good afternoon .....For me I do not subscribe to the private messaging option here. So it is difficult for me to answer questions privately. If one were to leave an email address I would be happy to answer any questions folks might have privately.
With the status conference set for one week from today, my hope is that equity holders will make an appearance. I plan on attending; my hope is that those that hold large blocks will attend where those attending will represent at least 10% of the outstanding shares.
As my motion, court document 3315, will be discussed I would ask equity holders attending to read that filing. Hopefully most will agree with me.
You all have a great evening.
Good evening ………… How do you like these apples?????
http://www.nola.com/environment/index.ssf/2014/10/offshore_oil_platform_owner_ag.html
And after reading the above try the next one
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/press-releases/attachments/2014/10/16/atp_partial_consent_decree_0.pdf
And now the Innovator can be claimed by the DIP and or ATP's 51% will be sold for pennies on the dollar. GE owns 49 %, Let’s think, what did GE pay for 49% of the innovator , wasn’t it $150 million. Maybe just maybe Anadarko will end up with this ATP asset. Let’s wait and see. My money is on Anadarko, deals, deals and side deals.
Than November 25, 2013 WWLTV special report, the link below, at ¾ through the report ATP comes up with a reported spill, that platform was the Titan, an asset claimed by the DIP. How many folks heard about this spill????
Hell not a word ……. maybe just maybe it not what you know but who you know. Oh yes this report was after the 363 sale. Check the link below, you need to watch and listen to the whole report.
http://www.wwltv.com/story/news/local/investigations/david-hammer/2014/09/03/14588560/
You all have a great evening.
Palico ...... thanks for your post ....... noted, will try and address your issues next week.
Anyone else want to add????
Thanks for your post. I think we have a great legal team representing ATP in the BP case. They would love to get our full claim paid. They will make a lot of money and we might luck out with BP having to pay our legal bills. The legal team doesn’t make the decision to settle or not settle. The client makes that decision.
My guess is that BP would have no interest in a settlement before the moratorium issue is resolved, paying ATP hundreds of millions of dollars, at this time, just may be too steep for them. The test cases go to trial in July of 2015, BP claims our losses were caused by the US government and the moratorium and not them.
The trustee is driving this settlement and if he offers a bargain basement settlement, BP just might jump at it, it depends how low the trustee will go. I think the trustee is hoping he can get BP to settle to generate enough revenue to pay all of the post-petition creditors and administrated expense claims.
Hell with court document 3264, BP just might tell him to take a hike.
Good afternoon ………. I shared the link below this morning. For those that have an interest please read document 3264. You have to scroll down to that document and then click on the PDF.
It might be just me, but it appears the trustee is not helping our case against BP.
This is just another reason to send in your letters voicing your concerns, before the trustee tries to negotiate away, billions of dollars.
Equity and prepetition creditors need a voice in any negotiations with BP.
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/n5c2fz3h/texas-southern-bankruptcy-court/atp-oil-and-gas-corporation/
Roman ……. Good morning check out this document, with the link below look for document 3264.
http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/n5c2fz3h/texas-southern-bankruptcy-court/atp-oil-and-gas-corporation/