Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

PetroFrontier Corp V.PFC

Alternate Symbol(s):  PFRRF

PetroFrontier Corp. is a Canada-based junior energy company. The Company is engaged in exploring for and the production of petroleum and natural gas in western Canada. It is focused on developing two Mannville heavy oil plays in the Cold Lake and Wabasca areas of Alberta. The Company has interests in approximately 16 gross (15 net) sections arising from several joint operations with the wholly owned energy companies of the Cold Lake First Nations (CLFN). The Company also has a joint venture agreement with the wholly owned energy company of the Bigstone Cree Nation (BCN), covering 1,024 gross (922 net) hectares in the Wabasca area of north-central Alberta, of which half has been earned as a leasehold interest. Those interests are located between CNRL’s prolific Brintnell enhanced oil recovery project producing approximately 50,000 bop/d of heavy oil and Cenovus’ proposed 10,000 bop/d thermal heavy oil project.


TSXV:PFC - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Comment by mining_pays_my_billson Aug 09, 2014 12:11am
295 Views
Post# 22824688

RE:A successful claim for damage....

RE:A successful claim for damage....Ozgood- what an awesome find! Here are some excerpts from that verdict that I found applied: [5] Stetson needed to raise funds in order to pursue the Bakken opportunity. Stetson’s market capitalization at the time was $15 to $20 million. (Very similar to PFC’s market cap in pursuit of the Georgina Basin) [6] Stetson wanted to raise funds through a bought deal financing because it wanted a guarantee with no financing risk. In a bought deal, the underwriter agrees to purchase the issuer’s securities at a fixed price and takes the risk of selling them in the market at a profit. [171] Stetson acknowledges that there are two possible ways that its damages can be calculated. The first is based on the difference between the 55 cents that Weisel was to pay to purchase the Stetson shares and the 20 cents that Canaccord agreed to pay, which is 35 cents, multiplied by the 45,454,600 shares provided for in the bought deal. This results in an award of $15,909,110. Stetson contends that damages should be calculated on a per share, rather than an aggregate basis [174] Stetson is also entitled to the expenses it had to incur in borrowing money on an interim basis that it needed to comply with its lease obligations, which borrowing would not have been required had Weisel not breached the engagement letter. (Apply this to PFCs dilution from 35% to 20%. PFC didn’t have to borrow money to comply with their lease obligations, but use the value of their land in lieu, giving Statoil an additional 15%. This would not have been required had McQuarie not breached the engagement letter) Also what I like most about this is it’s a Canadian O&G Junior suing an investment firm, exactly the same as we have here with PFC and McQuarie- the precedent has been established on many levels. I think we stand a chance here. And given what was used to calculate the payout (the per share price in the bought deal financing multiplied by # shares), I think PFC would qualify for the full $15M they lost (1$ per share X 15M shares McQuarie was going to purchase). Not saying that will be the outcome, just that in the case ozgood referred to, that was the outcome. There may be other factors/clauses in that agreement with McQuarie that we are not aware of.
Bullboard Posts