ShareholdersUnite Forums
RJ Says Redo - Printable Version

+- ShareholdersUnite Forums (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Companies (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: InterOil Forum (http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: RJ Says Redo (/showthread.php?tid=11434)

Pages: 1 2 3

RJ Says Redo - Putncalls - 11-08-2016

RJ:

Can Friday’s ruling be appealed? Yes, in theory, though it’s not an easy path. The Yukon
Court of Appeal is the highest court of the Yukon Territory. Appeals from this court go to
the Supreme Court of Canada. Much like the U.S. Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of
Canada selects which cases it wishes to hear, known as discretionary review. The court
typically agrees to hear 40 to 80 cases per year, and most of these involve issues of
national importance or certain points of constitutional interpretation. We do not claim to
be legal experts, but on the face of it, we doubt that the InterOil case would qualify.
 What do we think will happen next? InterOil and Exxon are considering filing an appeal,
but we think that a more realistic option would be to address the procedural aspects
cited in Friday’s ruling. This would require restarting the shareholder approval process
“from scratch”, including a new Management Information Circular and a new vote. A


RE: RJ Says Redo - jft310 - 11-08-2016

When we get a new vote at another AGM one of issues that should be voted on will be the firing of all of IOC's current Mgt team and a claw back of their ill gotten gains . Those in attendance at the hearing state "the court did all but call IOC Mgt crooks ".
That should surprise no one on this board.
Exxon's desire for E:A oil has not gone away .
Let's see what happens

RE: RJ Says Redo - Putncalls - 11-08-2016

PM's issues are muted:RJ:
"Why did the Court of Appeal block the deal? Although the text of ruling is not yet
available online, and there may be some legal nuances, our understanding is that the
decision hinged on two procedural aspects. First, the court criticized the level of
disclosure in the Management Information Circular. Second, the court felt that the
fairness opinion should be “independent”. To clarify, Phil Mulacek’s personal opposition
to the buyout terms (specifically, how the Contingent Value Rights are calculated) was not
the legal basis for blocking the deal. (This point means that, even if Mulacek were to
suddenly endorse the buyout, the court ruling would remain in place.)"

RE: RJ Says Redo - jft310 - 11-08-2016

The information in the Management Information Circular was flawed . Not enough information was given for a shareholder to make a proper decision . The Morgan opinion did not have enough info to help shareholders make a fair decision . Thus opening both up for a law suit .

RE: RJ Says Redo - oliver.gump - 11-08-2016

'jft310' pid='77375' datel Wrote:The information in the Management Information Circular was flawed . Not enough information was given for a shareholder to make a proper decision . The Morgan opinion did not have enough info to help shareholders make a fair decision . Thus opening both up for a law suit .

Perhaps a more apropos word would be "Obfuscated". The MIC was deliberately obfuscated, and the Morgan opinion was literally a "ratings for cash" event, just like those of S&P and Moody of the CDO tranches prior to the 2008 GFC.

The entire process was designed to have the appearance of open disclosure, whilst actually having the effect of active withholding and misinformation.



RE: RJ Says Redo - Putncalls - 11-08-2016

Deserve has nothing to do with it at this point. What is the point of shooting the shareholders in the foot so that PM can fell vindicated?

RE: RJ Says Redo - oliver.gump - 11-08-2016

'Putncalls' pid='77388' datel Wrote:Deserve has nothing to do with it at this point. What is the point of shooting the shareholders in the foot so that PM can fell vindicated?

And there you show that you have missed the point, again.

The point is that Phil IS vindicated, not becuase he demanded it, but because the appeal Court recognised that the entire process leading up to the vote was one of corporate manipulation of the shareholders, and what appears to be a conspyracy to defraud the shareholders for personal gain. In the process a bad deal was stopped and the stage was set for a better deal.

XOM still need the gas, and they have stated so. In fact it could be argued that since their inventory write down, they have a burning need to make that up prior to FYE-2016 for the sake of their own shareholders.

Compare the governance paradigmes within XOM and IOC. On one hand we see XOM, trying to do the best they can for "their shareholders", and on the other we see IOC trying to do the best they can for "themselves".

A better deal prior to Phil and his team getting involved, was not a possibility. Now the stage is set for a much better deal.

If you dont like it, your remedy is to sell.



RE: RJ Says Redo - Putncalls - 11-08-2016

All you had to say was, "The stage is set for a new deal". How do your make a NEW deal when A7 is already a hole? What will change the appraisal process to favor IOC shareholders in the interim? OSH will announce A7 results every month.

Antelope appraises for 7Ts and IOC is still trading for 45$? I wouldn't call that a reckoning.

RE: RJ Says Redo - jft310 - 11-08-2016

Why Keep ignoring the drive issue??

RE: RJ Says Redo - Putncalls - 11-08-2016

I'm not ignoring the drive issues! I'm waving the issue like a flag!!!