Replies to post #26213 on Mesa Offshore Trust (fka MOSH)

[kiwisteve]

Nice one! I hope we win... in the end!

Kiwi

[GO MOSH]

downsideup, I agree when you say

" It appears they expect, until the liability is eliminated in fact, that they can always re-attack settlement with the majority by making some sort of a non-punitive deal with the majority of unit holders, and by doing that can eliminate the primary basis of the action, based on a simple restoration of the status quo that restores the trust and keeps it alive rather than killing it.

I expect it is true that there are a significant number of unit holders, if still not a majority now, who would be willing to settle for a simple result in the restoration of a more proper effort in trust management... "

A POLL WAS TAKEN OF POSTERS HERE THIS SUMMER, GIVING THEM TWO CHOICES;
_______ Yes, I agree that the proposed auction is fair to Unitholders

_______ No, I agree that the Trust documents should be amended by majority vote of all Unitholders, as prescribed in sect. 8.03 of the Trust Indenture, to continue the Trust as is, and that a new Trustee and MGP/operator should assume the role of partners in the Articles of General Partnership

AND 79 OF 82 UNITHOLDERS RETURNED THEIR VOTE TO KEEP THE TRUST ALIVE. THOSE 79 UNITHOLDERS HELD 9,907,781 TRUST UNITS REPRESENTING 13.8% OF ALL OF THE 71,980,216 TOTAL UNITS OUTSTANDING. 2 VOTES FAVORED THE PROPOSED AUCTION REPRESENTING JUST 13,203 UNITS AND 1 VOTE WAS "CONDITIONAL" BY A UNITHOLDER WITH 49,000 UNITS.

THE WIEGAND GROUP VOTED ITS 15.8 MILLION UNITS (22% OF ALL UNITS OUTSTANDING) OBJECTING UNANIMOUSLY TO THE AUCTION. SO HERE THERE WERE NEARLY 36% OF ALL TRUST UNITHOLDERS WHO OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED AUCTION. AND THAT RESULT WAS JUST FROM A QUICK POLL OF EASILY ACCESSIBLE UNITHOLDERS WHO HAVE COMPUTERS AND FOLLOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS LONG STRUGGLE.

BASED ON THAT POLL, IT IS SAFE TO CONCLUDE THAT 99.9% OF ALL UNITHOLDERS WOULD BE SATISFIED WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE PRESENT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THAT SIMPLY KEEPS THE TRUST ALIVE.

WHY CAN'T THE SETTLING PARTIES SEE THAT THIS LONG LAWSUIT COULD BE ENDED NOW AND FOREVER WITH THE STROKE OF A PEN? AND IF THEY DON'T DO THAT, THEN WHAT SHOULD THAT TELL US ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF ULTERIOR CLANDESTINE SURREPTITIOUS MOTIVES UNDERLYING THE FINAL DISTRIBUTION OF OUR TRUST'S PROPERTIES????