Eagle Energy Inc T.EGL.UN

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Advisory firms

[whodathunkit]

From ISS report:

In its report dated June 14, 2017, ISS gave the following reasons why shareholders should NOT vote for the dissidents' blue proxy (emphasis added):
-- Given that control of the board is being sought, the dissidents'
disclosed business plan does not appear to provide any new detailed
long-term strategic initiatives.

-- While the proposed board reconstitution might trigger a default event
under the new loan, no specific alternative financing was proposed by the
dissidents.

-- The timing and urgency of the [dissidents'] proposed liquidation
execution for some of the company's assets (in order to repay debt) do
not appear to represent an optimal risk-reward combination for the
shareholders in the long-run given current depressed valuations and given
loss of potential upside associated with such liquidated assets.

-- [The dissidents state] that the company's assets are of a high quality,
while at the same time, the dissidents propose to sell a portion of these
assets in what appears to be not ideal market conditions.

-- Not so long ago, one of the dissidents offered to buy one of the
company's assets, which might indicate that even the dissidents
themselves think that being on a buying side of energy assets
transaction appears to be more attractive at this time.


The loan covenant my not be exercised but it certainly states above that it could trigger the default.  It would be up to White Oak to decide at the time.  And yes, they might not but they also might very well do it to ensure they get their money back because they don't know the concerned shareholders.  Saying that you "doubt" White Oak would put that in the loan covenant because they would be holding the company hostage when they don't own the company is ludicrous.  That would be exactly the reason they would do it. 

You say the concerned shareholders offered to buy assets at a fair value.  How do you know that?  The reality is you don't.  You are just saying that to make it sound nicer.  It has been stated by management that the offer was below fair value.  If it wasn't, why didn't the concerned shareholders refute that by presenting the actual offer so the world would know that management was lying?  Also, on what basis do you say it was turned down because Clark and crew wants the debt to increase?  You have no basis for that other than your attempts to make current management look bad.

Start thinking with your head and not your heart.

Cheers.