RE: Apparently the Globe thinks we are LuckyHey tiberious, Had anniversary dinner tonight too!
Workinmontana, i noticed this in the globe report,
"That may seem like OPTI's executives were doing it out of the good of their hearts, but restructuring expert Fred Myers at Goodmans LLP says it's likely that there were tax or licensing implications at play. Typically in a sale like this, a shell entity is left behind that holds all of the company's liabilities. If that structure was used, CNOOC wouldn't be able to take advantage of things like tax deferrals. By paying out shareholders, however, those bonuses still apply."
So it appears that the $3 billion in tax credits and the orrcrude license may be something that shareholders are still tied too. Not sure how or why, but I think this thickens the plot.
Also, as per the first restructuring news; (where we get warrants)
"Holders of over 50 percent of the Secured Notes have executed Support Agreements (the "Supporting Noteholders") pursuant to which they have agreed to support and vote for the restructuring plan."
But if you look at today's deal;
"
The Transaction is subject to approval by a majority in number, representing at least 66 2/3 percent of the principal amount, of votes cast by the holders of the Company's Second Lien Notes. OPTI has received executed support agreements (the "Support Agreements") from holders of approximately 55 percent of the principal amount of the Second Lien Notes pursuant to which they have agreed to vote in favour of the Transaction. If the Transaction is terminated, other than pursuant to a Superior Proposal, the parties to the Support Agreements have agreed, in certain circumstances, to pursue the restructuring plan outlined in the Company's press release dated July 13, 2011. The Noteholder Meeting regarding these matters is expected to occur in September 2011."
Am i wrong to assume that the secured note holders are considered as "first lien" holders, and the unsecured note holders to be "second lien"? WTF is going on here!!? The first's have signed one agreement with the gov't and the second's signed another with the Chinese. What if the first lien holders, who get their debt assumed by the chinese, don't want to have thier debt owned by them? Would not the first note agreement have to be somehow nulified before it goes any further?
Lastly, if the first restructure is now nulified, then so should be the grounds for creditor protection, and shareholders should still be in position to decide on a buyout. This spring, OPTI admitted to having another $400 million on tap to borrow if needed. So by no means were we forced into creditor protection......it came about, due to the first transaction preceedings........which most likely won't happen but has opened a loop hole to fluck over shareholders and give all power to the bond holders.
Giver