Replies to post #21065 on Mesa Offshore Trust (fka MOSH)

[Bourbon_on_my_cornflakes]

The plaintiffs had better make a case why we shold accept this deal:

20. The dismissal with prejudice of all intervenor claims and suits against Defendants is a condition precedent to this settlement and to payment of any consideration under this settlement. Irrespective of the procedural method by which such dismissals are obtained, the dismissals will be made part of the Agreed Final Judgment approved by the Court.

Now this is just plain sloppy/incompetent by Kim/Buzbee. If the plaintiff think the property is worth, say $100m, then they ought to have had the stooges guarantee to pay say $73m, to be reduced by the amount of the sale proceeds, to a minimum of $19m. That would at least leave the other unitholders thnking there was a limit to how little they would get at say $1 a share. Then at least we would have some reason not to oppose this deal. As it now stands, we are in real risk of getting zero, while WSE buys the property cheap, or the plaintiffs do. The plaintiffs should be banned from bidding.

[MikeWhite]

How many times do I have to tell you WSE did NOT pay $50M for midway A39. I dont know why you guys continue to spread this fud

WSE paid $55M for 8 prospects, 19 leads, 5 wells and an interest in 47 blocks. YES, 47 DIFFERENT BLOCKS!

http://www.woodside.com.au/NR/rdonlyres/CF926AA0-F810-44B8-88C4-96AFF9798348/0/ASX10WoodsidePioneeragreetermsonGulfgasplay240103.pdf

-Mike

[nsomniyak]

No-there is no reason for Woodside to ante up first. Had they wanted to do so they could have made an offer directly to unit holders at any point in time they wanted to.

Structuring an agreement like that would have, in effect, had Woodside put up $50MM guaranteed as opposed to the amount ($1MM? I forget) they actually put in up front. That would have been interpreted as an admission of guilt, and invited challenges from unit holders to the tune of "$50MM is not enough for what they admitted they did". The settlement terms clearly and explicitly indicate that there is no admission of guilt by the defendants. I am not a lawyer but I would assume the chance of a settlement without that language in it were effectively zero. It just wasn't going to happen.