Lightstream Resources Ltd. LSTMF

@bluesky sept 19

[reefsandals4eva]

As a result of the failure to reach such a settlement, in accordance with the terms of the Support Agreement, the Company is required to discontinue our currently contemplated plan of arrangement under the Canada Business Corporations Act (the "CBCA Arrangement"), commence proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA") and seek an initial order under the CCAA for the purposes of implementing a sale transaction under the CCAA (a "CCAA Sale Transaction") by way of a credit bid by the Secured Noteholders or other form of transaction within the CCAA proceedings acceptable to both the Company and the Ad Hoc Committee, all subject to the terms and conditions of the Support Agreement.

[BluSky23]

Yes, the issue for me when I read this, is that th SH vote to approve plan to get the 2.25% lives in the support agreement. As far as all messaging has gone, support agreement is alive. The did the stalking horse credit bid, and won. It says in the support agreement that it only replicates is SH's previously approved plan. I know SH's didn't get the chance, that is why I HOPE there is

[BluSky23]

Yes, the issue for me when I read this, is that th SH vote to approve plan to get the 2.25% lives in the support agreement. As far as all messaging has gone, support agreement is alive. The did the stalking horse credit bid, and won. It says in the support agreement that it only replicates is SH's previously approved plan. I know SH's didn't get the chance, that is why I HOPE there is

[Moemoney42]

What do you propose for action.. not willing to throw more money out the window like I have with LTS? Moe $$

[BluSky23]

Who to go after. First thought is Adhoc Committee. But they threw out a decent offer in CBCA, and Muldrick took that out. So is Adhoc culpable of wrong doing? Second is Muldrick/Unsecured, they simply did not go for the plan of arrangement. Not smart, but not illegal. Third option is officers of the company, particularly Wright. Did he mislead the public? Any underhanded, unethical or illegal

[Oldfart74]

Remember the Mudrick lawsuit was filed in July 2015.  I felt they had a legitimate claim but at the end they lost.  The court decisions have clarified the law in complex situations such as this.  

[wizthewiz]

Yes, I am inagreement with you on option #3 @bluesky, that is, if the statements in the Opression are accurate, Wright would have some explaining to do. All indicators point to some serious bait and switch. This is not some ad hoc outcome but the work of more nefarious planning. I have not studied all the documents in enough detail to make any kind of a definitive opinion, but where there's

[reefsandals4eva]

in my opinion and this is only an opinion, in order to be a dissenting shareholder at this point you'd have to sell your shares. In CCAA you'd be part of the majority whether you like it or not. In some cases that would be a bad thing.

[Pancho2]

Reefs, From your posting of  LTS article from 19th Sept 2016, it clearly stated that if the  Support Agreement failed under the CBCA, then LTS is allowed to continue the proceedings under the CCAA by way of a Credit Bid by the Ad Hoc Committee, all subject to the terms and conditions of the Support Agreement So if the Credit Bid is the Support Agreement and the Credit Bid was approved

[reefsandals4eva]

I know. I'm in complete agreement now.  No deal is done until it's done.  I 'm having a few regrets , I should have bought more shares when they were getting dumped.   I could handle this whole situation if shareholders get nothing and i owned a million shares but i'm going to regret this if this turns out really well and i should have owned more.   I guess that

[wizthewiz]

Check out MVN if you want more of that kind of risk. Likely has a >100% upside in 2017. Or so they say! I am long and maybe sorry but that is the game. BOL

[Oldfart74]

You have a vested interest in knowing whether or not you will receive shares in new entity.  Why don't you call the Monitor?  it's a simple question. You should get an answer.  They are running the show.

[Pancho2]

Oldfart74  "You have a vested interest in knowing whether or not you will receive shares in new entity.  Why don't you call the Monitor?  it's a simple question. You should get an answer.  They are running the show" ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know what I am getting but I want to know what is your vested interest

[Oldfart74]

Pancho, I'm not trying to fool anyone.  I've provided my opinion based on my reading of the Monitor's report and the Court Order.  If the Monitor disagrees with your position, it would be better to know now so you and the other shareholders can contact a lawyer to see if you should initiate legal proceedings to enforce your rights.  You may be right but I suggest you

[Pancho2]

The Monitor is present only during a Court proceedings to ensure all the parties do what they said they will do. We already knew that all what was agreed upon was carried out as reported. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again "Marketwired - Nov 22, 2016) - Lightstream Resources Ltd. (the "Company" or "Lightstream

[Oldfart74]

You are wrong Pancho with regards to the duties of the Monitor.  On Dec 8, the Monitor was granted additional powers and is now running Lightstream.  The sale closed at the end of the year and the Monitor is now derterming the validity of liens filed by trade creditors which be paid from The Reserve Account.  A Holdback Account was established to enable the Monitor to wind down