CPA proposes Class Action Law Suite vs MH and BOD

[jft310]

Movie/ No we could still litigate , they need 66 percent which is a big number ? Thus the 3 mailings on voting day it's said , we have only received one of each , vote blue ,?

[oliver.gump]

Movie/ No we could still litigate , they need 66 percent which is a big number ? Thus the 3 mailings on voting day it's said , we have only received one of each , vote blue ,?

If you vote white, you hand the company over to the people who have brought it to this point, for them continue their destruction and to do as they please with it. A white vote will provide a mandate to a governance and management team that are incentivized to sell regardless of the price, for personal gain.

If you vote BLUE, you get a chance to have increased input into the strategy of the company, and the process in which the assets are monetized. A BLUE vote will remove the mandate from the incumbents, and will provide establish a governance team who are shareholders in their own right, and are incentivized by the accretive growth in company value and PPS.

Disclaimer: I AM VOTING BLUE.

[Movieguy]

I got a sense from this board that before this deal announcement, people would have voted to keep this management and not change to Phil. Yes, there were many who were displeased, and some who loved Phil, but my sense was that most people felt things were at least okay and they were leery of Phil.

Since the deal announcement, there is an overwhelming displeasure (okay, "hatred) with the current management, and if this board is indicative at all of the larger shareholders sentiments, there is a decent chance management will get voted out, with their deal then falling through.

So my question is, why did management announce the deal now? Why not wait till after the meeting, and then only have to win one vote, not two? People have said this deal must have been cooking for a long time. Why not wait a little longer? Is there something big here that I am not seeing in regard to the timing of the deal announcement that in any way benefits current management?

[oliver.gump]

I got a sense from this board that before this deal announcement, people would have voted to keep this management and not change to Phil. Yes, there were many who were displeased, and some who loved Phil, but my sense was that most people felt things were at least okay and they were leery of Phil. Since the deal announcement, there is an overwhelming displeasure (okay, "hatred) with the current management, and if this board is indicative at all of the larger shareholders sentiments, there is a decent chance management will get voted out, with their deal then falling through. So my question is, why did management announce the deal now? Why not wait till after the meeting, and then only have to win one vote, not two? People have said this deal must have been cooking for a long time. Why not wait a little longer? Is there something big here that I am not seeing in regard to the timing of the deal announcement that in any way benefits current management?

Here is what I know about the situation.

1) This "Deal" has been in the making for around 8 months.

2) During that time there have been multiple financial statements made by IOC management

3) March 18, 2016 - Phils meeting requsition took them by surprise

4) March 30, 2016 - They then released their 2015 Financials but witheld the MIC

5) May 4, 2016 - They released their MIC, and at this time they still ommited to share with the shareholders that they were in advanced stages of negotiation to sell the entire kit and kaboodle.

5) The MIC contains the uplift and 50% due on announcement, portions of the golden parachute for the executives, so it is obvious that they knew at this stage the implications of the deal they were getting into with Oil Search.

6) They assumed that shareholder sentiment was significantly anti-Phil so as to render his opinions meaningless. They felt sure that this was a formality, a done deal, after all, the shareholders had been lapping up their other tripe, why not this too?

7) When the push-back based entirely on their stated financials, and the magnitude of the bonuses they were paying themselves, and then private projections on their rate of spend vs their actuall operations started appearing in the groups - they realised that they had misunderstood the market, the shareholders, and Phil - This was the awakening.

8) May 20, 2016 - They knew they now had no option but to announce the deal with "The BODs recommendation to the shareholders" which triggered the Golden Parachute clause for the execs.

The reason they could not wait any longer is as follows..:

1) They could claim some delay for "confidential negotiations" reasons, but now that the AGM was announced and was going to be contested, this would no longer fly.

2) They were in danger of getting a cluster of "termination for cause" meaning their Gloden Parachutes would be witheld, or at the very least held up in legal proceedings for years.

3) They still didnt grasp how badly they misread the investor sentiment, and they thought they could spin this in such manner as to make that silk purse from the sow's ear they were agreeing to.

4) ultimately for them it was a balancing act on a sliding scale, with:    [giving the shareholders too much information] <========> [going to prison for misleading the market]

Hession seems to be uniquely talented at obtaining the worst possible deal for the highest possible price.

Show them they made a mistake by (A) unemploying them, (B) witholding 100% of their bonuses, and © arranging a long vacation for them in Hotel GreyBar.

[Movieguy]

Thank you for that detailed, and apparently knowledgeable answer.

[cybersssss]

Thank you Oliver for that interesting explanation/theory/sequence. I agree that this appears completely financially motivated by the BOD and Mikey Hession. If this is true, which all arrows point towards, I agree with A, B and C.

The BODs financially engineered game has hurt many small investors. This is not acceptable. The breach of fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders of Interoil must be proven and repercussions felt.

[jft310]

Remember Phil asked the large shareholders what they wanted to happen. Hession could not be bothered.Hint to you Hession the shareholders own the company and we can and will do what's necessary to protect our interest.
Vote no!! Throw the bums out.

[maui4marko]

Maui votes no. They need to sweeten the pot with more VO Gold

[freddiekingman]

Maui votes no. They need to sweeten the pot with more VO Gold

I agree !

Maui..tnx for weightening in!

[jft310]

Sweeting the pot still leaves the BOD in Breach . The courts would look at the first deal to measure Breach or not . We save tens of millions with a Breach law suit. No payday for Hession and no stock rewards for the BOD . All we have to do is file .
It's like murder if you kill a person you go to jail . If you attempt murder you go to jail . Attempted underpricing assets for a payday for yourself is breaking the law and your Corporate Fiduciary Responsibility . Starts with no payday for the offenders . Other penalties may apply . We need to file the breach law suit . Seems fair for attempted rape of shareholders .