RE:morally and ethically criminal and corrupt to the CORECCAUTB0 wrote: The one scenario never mentioned that could have played out and truly been the Most beneficial to all. The buy Money from the Honk Kong Hijackers could have been paid solely to the Shareholders. The Hong Kong Hijackers would have then purchased the company, along with a debt and obligation that belong to the company at time of purchase.
They satisfy the banks whatever way they have to , to pacify or even pay-out. As I’m sure they could have easily refinanced somewhere else.
They then run the company as they see fit paying the debs as they were previously paid or satisfy them at any time in any manner agreeable by both parties.
However Woolman and the Board did the buyers and TBE a complete disservice by proceeding with an ignorant ill-planned sale that they thought they scare Stupid people into accepting.
They EVEN THREATENED vote Yes or else!
If not legally criminal, what they did was morally and ethically criminal and corrupt to the CORE.
I agree with you on this one, CCAUTB0: some sort of purchase could have been made, provided a "stay" was obtained from the Debenture Holders, to get paid in the future. But the Twin Butte shares had no value, in the recent price forecast situation. So the purchase would have been for $0.00 per share.
However, with a rising price forecast, there may have been future recovery potential. But that potential is gone now, with the receivership sale. Still, any recovery of Twin Butte, would have required some investment by shareholders, to kick in new capital. Unfortunately, no proposals were received. Anybody wanting Twin Butte, didn't want to do the shareholders any favours. Actually they diidn't want to do the Debenture Holders any favours either, but had to pay just enough, to close the deal.
I would have liked to write a proposal (I do spend enough time writing messages to slam that clown oilgasconsultant) But the issue with this BS receivership, was the limited time to close a deal, right around the Christmas holidays. Plus any proposals, had that small detail of the 10% deposit. You couldn't organize widely held shareholders, to kick in a deposit, unless a gorilla shareholder backstopped something.
Capital injection was required, to pay down the debt to the banks. But surely Twin Butte's assets had some value to them, to support some debt? What was that level of debt? Only sealed documents might tell us that, if they state what the new bankline would be.
An alternate universe, all assuming the price foreasts would continue to rise, would have played out with the following situation:
1. Capital injection of $80 million of preferred stock, and some common share warrants. Each shareholder would have to participate, in proprtion to the stock they own. Debenture Holders would purchase $20 million, and shareholders would purchase $60 million. Preferred shares would rank behind the Debentures, but ahead of Common Shares.
2. Bankline reduced to $130 million. Hard to say if the production base would be enough to obtain this size of bankline.
3. Debenture expiry extended till 2019. (Look at the Zargon deal, for creative ways of changing terms.) I'd rather get 100 cents on the dollar, later, than take 75 cents on the dollar, now.
4. Company cashflow used to do some actual drilling, and build value.
5. Oil Price spike increases the value of TBE's assets, allowing some strategic sales to be done.
6. Overall company value increases over time. Shareholders can get a lilft on their stock, given time.
This would be easier to do, with a proper reserves report, to show what the value of the company was, to help with a bankline. Perhaps the Company's assets wasn't as good as hoped, in which case there wasn't a chance to buy a reduce bankline.
I was hoping the Receiver's report would show a proper reserves report, and a proper sales process, not some quick fire-sale, using the last year's reserves report, then only 3 days to fine-tune bids, right before Christmas, just so people could show they actually sold something, priior to yearend.
Anyways, that would have been the alternate proposal. I was even waiting for the Credit Bid from the Debenture Holders, and that didn't even materialize, like originally suggested. Obviously they also had problems raising the 10% deposit.
There were no breaks given in the process, for anybody.