Another Try at the Legal Catalyst

[jft310]

SYD- For legal liabilities issues OSH uses holding companies just like Interoil just like Exxon etc etc.
If OSH can use holding companies then IOC can. Others disagree with your conclusions about what vehicle legally OSH is using but reality is it will be what it will be. We only have part of the story. the arbitrator will make a decision and we check off another box. Done and next.

[Palm]

Oil Search uses a similar holding company structure as IOC . Works for them and therefore should work for us. OSH is posturing. One may ask why?

This has been flogged to death many times before.

OSH IN NO WAY is using a holding company, OSH has only purchased shares in another company.

It is this other company that is claiming Pre emptive rights.

IOC actually sold a holding company, and in truth moved equity between various holding companies to enable them to sell one of the holding companies with an appropriate equity content to try to get around the Pre emptive rights issue.

The 2 situations are completely different in every way.

Problem is Syd that you are trying to treat this as a black/white situation.  What you are saying is that IOC could have sold 41% of the shares of the subsidiary and been all right (avoid preemption), as you say OSH could do the same thing with Exxon or whomever.  You're trying to say that transferring the shares to a new entity first and then selling that entity will 100% make things fall in OSH's favor.  Don't you think IOC/Total's attorneys would have just sold 41% of the shares then?  Or are they just not as smart as OSH's attorneys?  In effect, since the interests were (and had been for a long time) held in a subsidiary there are cases that say preemption can be avoided.  Again, this is not black and white and an arbitrator will have are hard time IMHO looking at the whole book of evidence and granting preemption to OSH.  You make it sound as if IOC did all of this shuffling between various holding subsidiaries.  100% of the interests were held in one subsidiary already.  It appears one transfer of 41% was made to make a clean sale to Total and avoid having a jointly-held entity which could complicate things later on.

[Getitrt2]

Agreed again, Palm.

FWIW, I vote to end the worthless negative speculation on this topic with no certain conclusion available and move on.

[sydbod]

........  It appears one transfer of 41% was made to make a clean sale to Total and avoid having a jointly-held entity which could complicate things later on.

That is the point I have been trying to make always.

AND if the reason for doing that 41% transfer was to try to get around Pre emptive rights issue, then none of us know exactly how the courts will handle this. It becomes a case of "was that manipulation done to try to get around the spirit of the Pre emption rights agreement".

It is a case for the courts, and NOT a case as some  others appear to imply of "my lawyers have bigger cahoonas than your lawyers".

Palm, I am not saying that OSH will win. I am just saying that there is a valid complaint that requires court arbitration if an agreement can not be reached.

[sydbod]

SYD- For legal liabilities issues OSH uses holding companies just like Interoil just like Exxon etc etc. If OSH can use holding companies then IOC can. Others disagree with your conclusions about what vehicle legally OSH is using but reality is it will be what it will be. We only have part of the story. the arbitrator will make a decision and we check off another box. Done and next.

JFT, why is it so hard to make you realise that OSH is not using a holding company in this case. OSH has only purchased shares in a company, and any equity in THAT company has stayed intact. One can not say the same about what IOC/Total did.

[Palm]

........  It appears one transfer of 41% was made to make a clean sale to Total and avoid having a jointly-held entity which could complicate things later on.

That is the point I have been trying to make always.

AND if the reason for doing that 41% transfer was to try to get around Pre emptive rights issue, then none of us know exactly how the courts will handle this. It becomes a case of "was that manipulation done to try to get around the spirit of the Pre emption rights agreement".

It is a case for the courts, and NOT a case as some  others appear to imply of "my lawyers have bigger cahoonas than your lawyers".

Palm, I am not saying that OSH will win. I am just saying that there is a valid complaint that requires court arbitration if an agreement can not be reached.

Agreed; let the arbitrator decide if necessary.  A preferred conclusion would be for Total/IOC/OSH to resolve things, which will be much easier if/once more resources are proven up.  My other point as far as the preemption is that neither IOC nor OSH will say or leave any trails which point to a move being made to avoid preemption.  Attorneys have a way of making such "evidence" vaporize.  Legally of course.

[Getitrt2]

sydbod, I don't think I've seen anyone here imply that it's a case of "my lawyers have bigger cahoonas than your lawyers", as you say; and I don't think that you know crap about how much of a "valid complaint" anyone has in this case. How about just dropping it at this point. I for one have heard all the negative speculation about it I want to hear. A request please, not an order, of course. You're just adding to uncertainty without contributing anything worthwhile to knowledge or understanding or in any other way, imo.

[kommonsents]

sydbod, I don't think I've seen anyone here imply that it's a case of "my lawyers have bigger cahoonas than your lawyers", as you say; and I don't think that you know crap about how much of a "valid complaint" anyone has in this case. How about just dropping it at this point. I for one have heard all the negative speculation about it I want to hear. A request please, not an order, of course. You're just adding to uncertainty without contributing anything worthwhile to knowledge or understanding or in any other way, imo.

The uncertainty is already there and has been since OSH filed their claim.

Discussing it helps all of us to understand what is going on and how the various issues may play out.  I find it reassuring that after discussing the various parts and issues involved that It appears that IOC and therefore the investors , has little to be concerned about.

I can't imagine why any reasonable investor would try to stifle discussion about any factor involved in the OSH claim and the arbitration.  Or should we just close our eyes and ignore that the problem(s) exist?

Since the title of this thread explains what it is about, anyone that doesn't wish to read about it can simply ignore it.

[Getitrt2]

sydbod, I don't think I've seen anyone here imply that it's a case of "my lawyers have bigger cahoonas than your lawyers", as you say; and I don't think that you know crap about how much of a "valid complaint" anyone has in this case. How about just dropping it at this point. I for one have heard all the negative speculation about it I want to hear. A request please, not an order, of course. You're just adding to uncertainty without contributing anything worthwhile to knowledge or understanding or in any other way, imo.

The uncertainty is already there and has been since OSH filed their claim.

Discussing it helps all of us to understand what is going on and how the various issues may play out.  I find it reassuring that after discussing the various parts and issues involved that It appears that IOC and therefore the investors , has little to be concerned about.

I can't imagine why any reasonable investor would try to stifle discussion about any factor involved in the OSH claim and the arbitration.  Or should we just close our eyes and ignore that the problem(s) exist?

Since the title of this thread explains what it is about, anyone that doesn't wish to read about it can simply ignore it.

I did NOT say anyone was creating uncertainty on something where there was none before.  I addressed some specific statements I thought were inaccurate and expressed the opinion he/they were ADDING further to uncertainty without any real benefit.  Don't distort what I said.  All this has been covered and discussed before.  What deserves "stifling" is inaccurate and repetitive negative speculation.  Also, in case you haven't noticed, there is plenty in this thread, as usual, besides the named topic.  The implied false accusation that I would advocate "closing our eyes and ignoring that" any "problem(s) exist" is totally unjustified and frankly absurd, but what I would expect from you toward me based on past personal attacks.

I suggested/requested previously that we observe a ceasefire and not respond to each other's posts. Is that not acceptable to you?

[kommonsents]

sydbod, I don't think I've seen anyone here imply that it's a case of "my lawyers have bigger cahoonas than your lawyers", as you say; and I don't think that you know crap about how much of a "valid complaint" anyone has in this case. How about just dropping it at this point. I for one have heard all the negative speculation about it I want to hear. A request please, not an order, of course. You're just adding to uncertainty without contributing anything worthwhile to knowledge or understanding or in any other way, imo.

The uncertainty is already there and has been since OSH filed their claim.

Discussing it helps all of us to understand what is going on and how the various issues may play out.  I find it reassuring that after discussing the various parts and issues involved that It appears that IOC and therefore the investors , has little to be concerned about.

I can't imagine why any reasonable investor would try to stifle discussion about any factor involved in the OSH claim and the arbitration.  Or should we just close our eyes and ignore that the problem(s) exist?

Since the title of this thread explains what it is about, anyone that doesn't wish to read about it can simply ignore it.

I did NOT say anyone was creating uncertainty on something where there was none before.  I addressed some specific statements I thought were inaccurate and expressed the opinion he/they were ADDING further to uncertainty without any real benefit.  Don't distort what I said.  All this has been covered and discussed before.  What deserves "stifling" is inaccurate and repetitive negative speculation.  Also, in case you haven't noticed, there is plenty in this thread, as usual, besides the named topic.  The implied false accusation that I would advocate "closing our eyes and ignoring that" any "problem(s) exist" is totally unjustified and frankly absurd, but what I would expect from you toward me based on past personal attacks.

getit, that wasn't a personal attack post, however you may wish to categorize it.  It was simply a disagreement about your tactics of trying to control this board about who says what about what.  This isn't the first thread you have done so.

There has been nothing negative about the posts here unless you simply don't like what was said for some reason I can't fathom.  It's called analysis and discussion, exactly what this board is here for.

I suggest that your personal attacks, including the one above on me, are far more personal and intolerant.

Perhaps we should let the others decide what they wish to read and discuss?  I'm quite sure they are fully capable of doing so.