Leaves me, first, needing to know the ownership of the leases now... the details of any deals done to dispose of them... and where the money from production and any lease sales went.
Then, what is the deal with the $40 million note ?
Looks like management aggregated the leases in Lariat/ACLY in return for the $40 million note owed PGPM, and then might have sold the properties to cover the debt owed to the IMVS creditors, without ever paying PGPM for the leases based on the note owed shareholders, all without reporting any of the transactions properly.
In my book, that is called fraud and conversion...
What appeared to be the originally intended fraud appears it was disrupted. They did not fully succeed in swapping you from owning your PGPM holding to owning an ACLY holding, which would have been a "conversion" that took you from having them owing you $40 million in PGPM, to you owing them the $40 million...
It still looks like they first, wrongly, took the leases from PGPM to Lariat, and then to ACLY, pricing them at $40 million, and then, it seems, they had ACLY sell the leases (???) to generate an unknown benefit for themselves and others... ignoring the priority in lien that the debt to PGPM clearly created ???
That the recent "filings" of financials for PGPM were done by an accountant who also "just happens" to be an insider at both PGPM and ACLY... who did the unaudited reports without ever meeting any of the need to address the obligation to fulfill unmet SEC reporting requirements at ACLY ???
They did recently post financials for PGPM... and they clearly DID know, when they filed those documents, what the reality of the changes in the situation were... although none of that seems to be reflected in the financial information they posted ?
Any claim the financials they did only reflect the limited data they were given to work with by the company... is wholly bogus... given they conducted the various transactions that the financials apparently failed to reveal...
They lost $$$ in fines paid to the RRC... probably lost bond $$$ that had been posted to with the RRC... and had to know all that.
The RRC documents say fines could have been as much as $10,000 a day for ongoing violations... which would take the entire bond $$$ pretty rapidly ? Did that happen ?
It looks like they've tried to paper over the apparent theft, first by not fixing the audit trail issues at ACLY... but, the posting of numbers for PGPM, audited or not, can't stand the basic sniff test... given the accountant who did the work was also the owner/operator/manager, knowledgeable as an insider, and not at arms length... so any bit of misreporting, audited or not, would constitute a new fraud... ???
What is the prior relationship, if any, between ACLY et al, and the IMVS creditors ?
What is the relationship, if any, between the IMVS creditors and the new operators ?
Where is the $40 million ?
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
