RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: email responseSomething else to keep in mind when the courts look at the buyout;
https://documentcentre.eycan.com/Pages/Main.aspx?SID=184 (as per the second bench brief)
19 Finally, in making orders under the CCAA, the court must never lose sight of the objectives of the legislation.
These were concisely summarized by the chambers judge and adopted by the British Columbia Court of
Appeal in Re Pacific National Lease Holding Corp. (1992), 15 C.B.R. (3d) 265 (B.C. C.A. [In Chambers]):
(1) The purpose of the CCAA is to allow an insolvent company a reasonable period of time to reorganize its
affairs and prepare and file a plan for its continued operation subject to the requisite approval of the creditors
and court.
(2) The CCAA is intended to serve not only the company's creditors but also a broad constituency which includes
the shareholders and employees.
(3) During the stay period, the Act is intended to prevent manoeuvres for positioning amongst the creditors
of the company.
If this holds true, then the court should not allow the buyout while OPTI is under CCAA.
So we need to ensure that we have a voice durring this CCAA process.....possibly via a lawyer but not in a class action sort of way.
To me, everything is semi kosher right up until the CNOOC offer happened while shareholders have no vote. I believe that we need to ensure that we get back to the first restructure and get our warrants. Trying to prove any negligence before that could be very difficult.......not impossible, but I think the first step is to work at ensurring that our warrants hold up first. Then, if you feel that you want to forfeit that offer and sue opti/nexen, then one can make that decision then.
I think most of you will agree that you were content with the first restructure offer (with warrants) and that would be a nice place to be again.
Please try to keep this in perspective before we go and burn down the village.
Giver