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.

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum STETSON OIL V.SSN

"Stetson Oil & Gas Ltd is an exploration stage company. It is in the business of exploring opportunities in the domestic and international oil and gas sector."

TSXV:SSN - Post Discussion

STETSON OIL > Do we have a legitimate complait?
View:
Post by mojo123 on Jan 13, 2014 2:02pm

Do we have a legitimate complait?

https://www.osc.gov.on.ca/en/22403.htm

Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada (IIROC)

Will these guys do anything for us?

Comment by rkham on Jan 13, 2014 6:49pm
Yes...
Comment by mtsuit on Jan 13, 2014 7:16pm
Stetson didn't receive any money by 12/31/13 so the preferred's claim expired.  Case closed. Maybe they could have applied to extend the expiration, but they were under no obligation to do so.  And they did not.
Comment by rkham on Jan 14, 2014 8:24am
Thanx for your play by play. Maybe leading up to the expiry date things should have been handled differently. IMO,either way its comes down to judgement & the best interest of the SH considering the circumstance from March victory. The flavour is different If in march/2013 we lost the case & filed for the appeal.. Obligation=best interest. IMO,R
Comment by mtsuit on Jan 14, 2014 9:54am
Fiduciary obligations to preferred sharehodlers are normally limited to the terms of the preferred contract.  In particular, when there is a conflict between the interests of common vs preferred shareholders over an issue not addressed in the preferred contract, US courts have favored the rights of the common (I assume the same applies in Canada, but I don't have an example to prove it).  ...more  
Comment by rkham on Jan 14, 2014 11:41am
I understand & hope you turn out to be wrong... We'll see how things unfold... As a investor it was my understanding that a victory entitled us to a fair process from there forward. I attempted to communication Stetson this very question & they  failed to forward me the answers. we'll see how things unfold.. as the stomach turns
Comment by shawshank on Jan 14, 2014 6:11pm
MTSuit: it behooves me as to why the preferred shareholders could not band together for the formation of a class action lawsuite-for the basic and reasonable position that the preferred shares were issued for participation of said proceeds from successfull litigation not from any  contigency on the company's inability to collect on a successfull award...in other words the plaintiffs ...more  
Comment by RTO on Jan 15, 2014 11:03am
The courts "awarded" damages.  The courts also "awarded" sums ($4+ million) that had to be paid in August 2013!!   Where is that money at??  SHAFT