Yukon lawyers opinions were solicited

[jft310]

Per Yukon lawyers -If you vote no dissenting those no dissenting shareholders become a new class of shareholders . Those shareholders then can negotiate an extra payment that can include possible extra value for TBR based on Hession payments etc , can or can not participate in a later Ant 7 payment but either way get paid for Ant 7 all based on negotiations and other added value like a second certification etc etc . We have Phil and his group to help with negotiations ,

How to pay the lawyers that negotiate ? Either on a per share basis or maybe in a class action suit a contingency payment for a win . Think Phil wants a better deal ?? Think Phil wants a big legal bill??

Scared the no's win and the stock might drop ? That's fearful logic .

The only way the stock drops is if Exxon walks . Exxon will not walk !!IOC gets sold !!If the stock price drops there are lots of smart investors to buy it back up .

Why ?? It's a 40 mile pipeline from our fields to that Exxon T or Billions more to monetize P'Nang . Is Exxon stupid ?? Does money matter ??Or does Exxon want our gas .

So file those complaints and let's see Hession and crew give some back shares and dollars . Vote no to begin with and let's see what happens .

[ebster123]

JFT, you are in at $7 and many are in at a 10 multiple of you. You are still up over 5 fold and many others are down 50%. I am still comfortable with Phil's push but am not desiring to pay ANY legal fees. I WOULD like to see MH in jail but at what cost. You Pom Pom pumping often gives me nausea. Please please stop the marketing and speak with a balanced stance.

[Palm]

"Scared the no's win and the stock might drop ? That's fearful logic."

It's not fearful logic, it's Business 101 reality and risk management. To leave the gap between voting No and lawsuits void is a huge strategic error. No details on who management and BOD will be with little more than "dozens are interested" is very legitimate concern. That gap needs to be addressed.

[cybersssss]

Excellent point Palm. There needs to be more of a plan then just voting NO or dissenting NO. Our management will not do it clearly. Their silence is loud. Will Phil? I hope so Phil. If you aren't wading this please give us a plan. FWIW I voted for ALL of phill proposals in June. If that would have gone through I do believe we would be in better shape today. Fact is Phil needs a balanced team to come in supported by point72, wells, etc. if we can get that together it could be a slam dunk.

[cybersssss]

Btw. Regardless I'm voting no. I believe that the pps would not take a hit. if we would take a short term hit, I think it will not be as bad as ppl are worried about and will only be short if at all.

A plan would get many more on board.

[jft310]

"Scared the no's win and the stock might drop ? That's fearful logic." It's not fearful logic, it's Business 101 reality and risk management. To leave the gap between voting No and lawsuits void is a huge strategic error. No details on who management and BOD will be with little more than "dozens are interested" is very legitimate concern. That gap needs to be addressed.

There is zero void to those that understand the plan

if the yes vote wins which seems quite logical then the dissenting voters get a remedy through the Yukon courts ,

lf the no's win then Hession is still CEO and Exxon will either walk or up the price .Exxon realizes the difference in montizing E/A vs P'Nang and it's literally Billions of dollars if there is even enough gas at P'Nang . One must conclude using simple math that Exxon will not walk but will up the price . PM has proposed a second certification like what the IPI is doing to help convince him to vote yes , There is no cost to Exxon to include a second certification because Total is paying . This is just an example how PM can work with Exxon to extract value ,

There is no need for a new CEO let Hession monetize his holdings at a higher price than what was first proposed . Understand PM has been negotiating with Exxon directly because they understand how unhappy many shareholders are and they actually want a deal to go forward ,

[Palm]

But not sure you understand the plan as PM's righ-hand guy in this has said that should the No vote prevail and XOM let the air out of their offer, a new CEO would be be sought out. That would indicate not MH.

[jft310]

PM realizes Interoil will be sold and has publicly stated the same . Nonsense talk about a new CEO the firm gets sold . The question is which group of investors do you want shares placed in . The yes group , the no group , or the no dissenting group which for a proper settlement to this group alone becomes a yes vote .

[sageo]

"Scared the no's win and the stock might drop ? That's fearful logic." It's not fearful logic, it's Business 101 reality and risk management. To leave the gap between voting No and lawsuits void is a huge strategic error. No details on who management and BOD will be with little more than "dozens are interested" is very legitimate concern. That gap needs to be addressed.

There is zero void to those that understand the plan

if the yes vote wins which seems quite logical then the dissenting voters get a remedy through the Yukon courts ,

lf the no's win then Hession is still CEO and Exxon will either walk or up the price .Exxon realizes the difference in montizing E/A vs P'Nang and it's literally Billions of dollars if there is even enough gas at P'Nang . One must conclude using simple math that Exxon will not walk but will up the price . PM has proposed a second certification like what the IPI is doing to help convince him to vote yes , There is no cost to Exxon to include a second certification because Total is paying . This is just an example how PM can work with Exxon to extract value ,

There is no need for a new CEO let Hession monetize his holdings at a higher price than what was first proposed . Understand PM has been negotiating with Exxon directly because they understand how unhappy many shareholders are and they actually want a deal to go forward ,

Jft - Good am to you. In your last paragraph about "unhappy shareholders " ..... I believe that most of our shareholders realize that even if Exxon offered us $65 a share they would be making tons & tons & tons of money.At $75 a share they would make tons & tons of money. At $85,they would make tons of money. (...and they know it).

I don't believe their primary goal is to scew us (unlike hession ) ,but simply to buy our massive, hydrocarbon assets as cheaply as they can. [...just good bussiness in their eyes ].

Still hoping the deal can be improved somehow !" border="0" class="smilie" src="http://shareholdersunite.com/mybb/images/smilies/huh.gif" />  Best to you & yours.