Replies to post #18073 on Mesa Offshore Trust (fka MOSH)

[Lebaneseproud]

Mike White you said 2) Many people here relied on representations and/or guarantees made my certain persons (on and off the board) who purport to represent the unit holders. I think these people will be held accountable if the average MOSH unit holder gets screwed over. Make you wonder why some people disappeared recently doesn’t it???


Are you implying that maybe certain posters who disappeared may have screwed over unitholders?

[Lebaneseproud]

Like i said in a previous post MikeWhite, if the plaintiff doesnt strongly and swiftly move to have this auction halted immediaitely then many red flags will go up for me. As far as the rest of your post i think its all speculation and i choose to think the best of people until they show me otherwise.

[Lebaneseproud]

Mike you said 1) We all know the Weigand intervener group was non-suited awhile back. While the individuals might have been non-suited I do see MOSH Holdings LLC as a partner in MOSH Holding LP. Could the Weigand interveners created a new LLC and have that LLC added as a partner to MOSH Holdings LP??? Could very well be


Mike do you know that the Weigand Group formed an LLC and became a partner with MHLP or are you just speculating?

[the cork]

Interesting weave mike, although I don't agree with much of it.

I don't recall anybody purporting to represent the unit holders here as you specifically stated.

If you would kindly and specifically provide a substantiating link I'll check it out.

I'm not convinced the sudden appearance or disappearance of any particular poster can be interpreted to mean much. I'm also not convinced a sudden arrival is any more significant than a departure, for what ever reason.

You are right to question incongruities. History and all that.

Regarding:

:... Plus now if PXD sells the assets with MOSH LP’s interpretation of the data included I am sure they are exposed to liability as now people will rely on these interpretations...."

How is it you are "sure" of that?

The data was not submitted by MOSH.
Mosh gave no permission to use the data.
If there ws no intent to sell in the first place there can be no intent to defraud. Pretty basic stuff.

Generous to admit:

"I could be completely wrong. So what am I doing?..."

The disclaimer has a tendency to refute whatever came before, the way I see it.

GLTA !!

[boxsterX]

MikeWhite, it is interesting to see you reappear at this point after so long.

Re: "3) Why do I bring this up? Well the proposed sale of the partnership and its assets will carve out the MOSH LP claims. So it looks like the MOSH TRUST will lose these claims. This is probably what PXD, JPM and Woodside would like as they will limit their liability exposure to less unit holders (only those in the suit). I am sure MOSH LP would not mind either except for the fact any fire sale prices the Partnerships interest sells for will be used by PXD against MOSH LP to discredit they $1.2B claim."


Please explain exactly how the sale of the leasehold interests will (a) cause a sale of the partnership itself; (b) "carve out the MOSH LP claims"; or (c) limit their liability exposure to less unit holders.

Your post seems to be a rehash of your previously expressed position, and that of a few others, that in some manner the revovery or settlement (if any) will be limited to less than all of the unit holders, whether by date of acquisition of one's units or by some other criteria. It has been noted that the Judge previously rejected a proposed settlement that provided benefits to less than all of the unitholders. What is the basis of your current post indicating (again) that the outcome will not be shared by all unitholders. This is a very important point, and you should explain your position, or acknowledge you have no specific support or basis for your statement. This is especially true, due to your prior history of "yelling fire in a crowded theatre".

[ronpopeil]

Mikewhite,

My response to your thoughts:

1. As far as I am aware, the Weigand interveners have not formed, nor plan to form any new LLC. I presume you are merely speculating unless you can provide some sort of proof.

2. The posters on this board are responsible for their own investing decisions. No matter what anyone posts, you must do your own DD and make your own decisions. Much of what was posted by some of these posters you are calling out were based on documents/filings that were made public for all of us to read.

3. Pure speculation on your part which is fine. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

4. Where is your proof that MOSH LP knew about the sale for months? As far as i am aware, the first we/plaintiffs heard of it was from the latest 8-K. Can you provide any information to substantiate your claim? Kim responded accordingly as soon as the proposed auction was announced. There is no way, imo, the judge will allow the assets to be auctioned off while the case is going on.

5 & 6. As far as i am aware, the plantiffs, intervenors etc are all on the same page. I believe personally the end goal is to keep the trust alive and get money damages.

7. I strongly disagree. Any and ALL discovery was confidential. The defendants disclosed this information which was a big no-no. They will pay.