Breitburn Energy Partners LP fka BBEPQ

[cents2ks]

Time to get serious. :
RESPONSE OF STATUTORY COMMITTEE OF EQUITY SECURITY HOLDERS TO MOTION OF DEBTORS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 1121(d) FOR FURTHER EXTENSION OF EXCLUSIVE PERIODS
https://cases.primeclerk.com/breitburn/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=NTgxODIy&id2=0

RESPONSE 1. The Debtors first requested this Court extend exclusivity in late October 2016. At that time, the Equity Committee had not yet been formed. The Creditors’ Committee and one of its members vigorously objected to the Debtors’ request, and asked this Court condition any extension of exclusivity on the completion of a marketing process for the Debtors’ lucrative Permian Basin assets.
Faced with opposition from just one of the Debtors’ constituencies, this Court remarked: "You know, when I was reading these papers I was thinking that maybe the best thing to do is appoint a plan examiner or a mediator who can just make people sit in a room if that’s what the issue is in this case." Oct. 27, 2016 Hr’g Tr. at 23:8-12.

The Debtors ultimately obtained the extension over these objections without having to market test any of their assets, even though demand has soared to

unprecedented levels.
2. Now, almost one year into these chapter 11 cases, this Court’s inclination to order mediation appears more warranted than ever, with multiple parties unable to coalesce around a path forward. While the Debtors still do not have consensus among their unsecured noteholders, disagreement among the Debtors’ other stakeholders has intensified. Negotiations with second lien noteholders appear to have deadlocked. Exit financing has not been finalized. A structure that delivers a recovery to equity holders and minimizes the impact of cancellation of debt income has not been solidified. The wide range of competing views on valuation has not narrowed. And, despite the Debtors’ repeated assurances, no chapter 11 plan has been filed. In other words, these chapter 11 cases have reached an impasse.
3. Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the Equity Committee recognizes the importance for the Debtors to maintain exclusivity. Indeed, exclusivity can foster cooperation and negotiation among parties in a way that may not prove feasible in its absence. Accordingly, for all of these reasons, the Equity Committee proposes this Court accompany any extension of the Exclusive Periods with the simultaneous appointment of a mediator to help the Debtors and their stakeholders attempt to consensually resolve the issues necessary to facilitate the Debtors’ emergence from chapter 11.
4. The Equity Committee would prefer to resolve these chapter 11 cases in a conference room, not a courtroom. Given the complexity of the issues presented here, the appointment of a mediator may avoid the expense and delay associated with a contested confirmation hearing, which the Equity Committee otherwise must pursue if the parties do not resolve their differences. In light of this Court’s prior admonitions about expense, mediation at this critical stage presents a sensible option that, when accompanied with an extension of the Exclusive Periods, both maintains the interests of the Debtors and advances the global resolution of these chapter 11 cases for the benefit of all stakeholders.


...also see:
RESPONSE OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS TO THE DEBTORS’ THIRD MOTION TO EXTEND EXCLUSIVE PERIODS
https://cases.primeclerk.com/breitburn/Home-DownloadPDF?id1=NTgxODkx&id2=0