Thread Rating:
  • 5 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
No Decision in Yukon
#1

SINGAPORE and PORT MORESBY, Papua New Guinea, Sept. 28, 2016 /PRNewswire/ -- InterOil Corporation (NYSE: IOC, POMSox: IOC) today provided the following update regarding InterOil's pending transaction with Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) ("the transaction"Wink:

As previously disclosed, the closing of the transaction with ExxonMobil requires a final order from the Supreme Court of Yukon. The hearing was held on September 27 and the court is considering the matter, including an objection filed by Phil Mulacek.

Completion of the transaction prior to the end of September would require issuance of a final order no later than the close of business on Thursday, September 29. ExxonMobil and InterOil intend to close the transaction promptly after the final order is obtained.

- - - - -

About InterOil

InterOil Corporation is an independent oil and gas business with a sole focus on Papua New Guinea. InterOil's assets include one of Asia's largest undeveloped gas fields, Elk-Antelope, in the Gulf Province, and exploration licenses covering about 16,000sqkm. Its main offices are in Singapore and Port Moresby. InterOil is listed on the New York and Port Moresby stock exchanges.

- - - - -

Forward Looking Statements

This communication includes "forward-looking statements". All statements, other than statements of historical facts, included in this communication are forward-looking statements.  Such forward-looking statements may include, without limitation, statements regarding the pending transaction with ExxonMobil, the timing to consummate the proposed transaction with ExxonMobil, the ability to satisfy the conditions to consummation of the proposed transaction, and the timing or outcome of the resource certification process for the Elk-Antelope field as applicable to the CRP.  These statements are based on the current belief of InterOil, as well as assumptions made by, and information currently available to InterOil.  No assurances can be given however, that these events will occur.  Such statements are subject to a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond the control of InterOil, which may cause actual results to differ materially from those implied or expressed by the forward-looking statements. These include in particular assumptions, risks and uncertainties relating to the risk that a condition to closing of the proposed acquisition may not be satisfied, the timing or outcome of the resource certification process for the Elk-Antelope field as applicable to the CRP and other risk factors discussed in InterOil's management information circular dated August 16, 2016, its annual report for the year ended December 31, 2015 on Form 40-F and its Annual Information Form for the year ended December 31, 2015, and under the heading "Factors Affecting Future Results" available through the "Investors" section on ExxonMobil's website and in Item 1A of ExxonMobil's 2015 Form 10-K. InterOil disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as expressly required by applicable laws. References to gas resources in this release may include amounts that ExxonMobil or InterOil believe will ultimately be produced but that are not yet classified as "proved reserves" under U.S. SEC definitions.

- - - - -

Legal Notice

None of the securities anticipated to be issued pursuant to the ExxonMobil transaction have been or will be registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "U.S. Securities Act"Wink, or any state securities laws, and any securities issued pursuant to the ExxonMobil transaction are anticipated to be issued in reliance upon available exemptions from such registration requirements pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the U.S. Securities Act and applicable exemptions under state securities laws. This document does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities.

There can be no assurance that the transaction with ExxonMobil will occur. The ExxonMobil transaction is subject to certain approvals and the fulfillment of certain conditions, and there can be no assurance that any such approvals will be obtained and/or any such conditions will be met.

Drivel Maven with Personality
Reply

#2
I wonder what Phil's specific objection was - and how long it might take the court/judge to research this and make a decision....
Reply

#3
Hmmm... This may have caught a lot of people by surprise. I'm looking at my TDAmeritrade this morning and my InterOil options in October are showing XOM as the underlying security !
Reply

#4

I wonder what Phil's specific objection was - and how long it might take the court/judge to research this and make a decision....

*******
Was there a timeframe attached to the completion of any aspect of Hession's "change of ownership" bonus?  There's no lost love between Hession and Phil (actually there's no lost love between Hession and lots of people) so I wonder whether that could have a bearing on Phil's motivation to object.

Reply

#5

'CAC' pid='76600' datel Wrote:

I wonder what Phil's specific objection was - and how long it might take the court/judge to research this and make a decision....

*******
Was there a timeframe attached to the completion of any aspect of Hession's "change of ownership" bonus?  There's no lost love between Hession and Phil (actually there's no lost love between Hession and lots of people) so I wonder whether that could have a bearing on Phil's motivation to object.

According to another poster (too lazy to look it up!), Hession gets his bonus based on the board approving the deal back in the summer.   So, as long as the deal closes (which it will), he is golden!!   Us - not so much Sad

Reply

#6

I just checked on Phil's website, http://www.concernedinteroilshareholders.com/ , and there is nothing recent there to shed light on the objection he raised during the Yukon Supreme Court hearing. I wonder if this "objection" was raised solely on his behalf or for all shareholders? Wonder if we will ever know.

Reply

#7

'bdahl385' pid='76603' datel Wrote:

I just checked on Phil's website, http://www.concernedinteroilshareholders.com/ , and there is nothing recent there to shed light on the objection he raised during the Yukon Supreme Court hearing. I wonder if this "objection" was raised solely on his behalf or for all shareholders? Wonder if we will ever know.

I would think the court proceeedings should be public records.

Reply

#8
OAS is up 4% today.
Reply

#9
(09-29-2016, 01:20 AM)AU74 Wrote:

(09-29-2016, 12:30 AM)bdahl385 Wrote:

I just checked on Phil's website, http://www.concernedinteroilshareholders.com/ , and there is nothing recent there to shed light on the objection he raised during the Yukon Supreme Court hearing. I wonder if this "objection" was raised solely on his behalf or for all shareholders? Wonder if we will ever know.

I would think the court proceeedings should be public records.


Court proceedings are generally public record. However, they generally aren't published until the completion of the Court action. Viewing the website for the Supreme Court of the Yukon last night it looks like they don't see a large volume of cases nor do they publish them na timely fashion as some people are accustomed to for certain courts in the United States
Just when I thought I was Out....They Pull Me Back In! -Michael Corleone about the mob and Weasel about investing in IOC
Reply

#10
I have NOT talked to Phil about his objection . These are my opinions
If you have followed my posts you know that I feel that Hession Breached his Fidiciary respondsibility to shareholders in this deal .
An agreement to sell a company at any price is just not proper. The Byker deal with Hession was flawed in structure as to price they were looking for and in timing 3 years makes no sense . Putting guidelines in for a sale under these so and so condition makes sense. But the Hession deal said just sell the darn .thing.This particular deal with Exxon has at least 3 fatal flaws .
*A deal with a cap on asset size payments is clearly a breach of fiduciary respondsibility for Hession and the BOD.
*This BOD declared a discovery at TBR and rewarded Hession with $3 million bonus for that discovery then sold those assets for zero.
*This BOD signed a deal with Total to drill Ant S and had preliminary seismic estimates of a major new asset below Ant S . This BOD sold those assets for zero.
What a joke what a terrible deal . Then we can look at pay levels and bonuses which is further Breach .
Go Phil go .
Reply



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)