RE:RE:RE:PM me if you are unhappy This is certainly a worthwhile pursuit. A lot of information has been gathered, along the way. It would have been plausible to attempt a CCAA, and keep the company limping along, like Conacher was able to do. Twin Butte had better assets than Conacher's.
Shareholders need to get involved, and I believe there should have been some intrinsic value of a few cents per share, had the company been properly restructured. Perhaps even more than a few cents per share, in the longer term, with rising oil prices.
National Bank acted predatory, trying to get their money back as fast as possible, without consideration to other options, that would take longer. I recall the one time in Court, they sent their lawyer to serve a warning to a certain member of the AdHoc group, to quit pestering National Bank about the receivership, or else they would start charging their legal time, that it took them to read and respond to the emails, that were critical of their actions. That's pretty rich: make money on fees for issuing shares and debentures, then grab all the bank loans back, at the expense of the Debenture Holders and Shareholders, then tell people they can't complain, because that is was written into the receivership law.
Don't forget the board did tell us: "Twin Butte believes that the current share price is not reflective of the long term value within the Company's asset base, and therefore has initiated a process to identify, examine and consider a range of strategic alternatives available to the Company, with a view to enhancing shareholder value."
So did they actually mean that the shares had no value, when they issued this news release in December, 2015?
Part of the problem was their own generous dividend plan. They were paying nice cash distributions, with inadequate cash hedges, to support the future debt payments, should the oil prices stay down for longer than a few months, which is what the price ended up doing. There were some poor decisions made, in the past, to not focus on paying down bank debt, to a more comfortable level.
It is ludicrous to tell a small group with no access to capital markets, that they have to come up with a plan to make the banks whole. Had the Company been kept operating in a CCAA, they could have likely limped along, while prices slowly rose. Some selective asset sales could have been attempted.
I believe that Surge Energy purchased some of Twin Butte's assets, in the Provost area, after Company sale closed. That type of property sale deal, could have been attempted in a CCAA restructuring, if the Company had more time to pursue a different path forward.
Don't forget that the company limped along in receivership, with minor interim borrowing, and the loan was all paid off, by cashflow. They even drilled a well, in receivership, that turned out reasonable. Perhaps more wells could have been drilled, under CCAA.
So how can this action be structured, to benefit both Debenture Holders and Shareholders? How much "seed capital", is required for the legal fees?
I assume alot of work has already been done by Bennet Jones, while serving the Debenture Holders. Probably a few more affidavits are required (I could organize my old Stockhouse thoughts in a more professional form, so this bulletin board is still required) but I think we are close to a point where it wouldn't take much time to file some papers in Court.
Shareholders, speak up!