Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

InterOil Corporation Message Board

gander_65 12 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 10, 2016 1:19 AM Member since: Aug 11, 2005
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Hession: Corporate Thief & POS

    by pardontheinterruption Jun 8, 2016 3:17 PM
    gander_65 gander_65 Jun 10, 2016 1:19 AM Flag

    Looks like all values for the stock swap were locked in on May 19, 2016 closing prices. That would be (US)$40.123 per IOC share. What I don't know is if being a shareholder on May 19, 2016 automatically locks you in to participation in the CVR, even if you sell you stock before the deal is finalized. Inquiring minds want to know.
    Gander

  • gander_65 gander_65 Jun 9, 2016 1:58 PM Flag

    With our limited knowledge, this makes sense.
    JMO
    Gander

  • Reply to

    Hession: Corporate Thief & POS

    by pardontheinterruption Jun 8, 2016 3:17 PM
    gander_65 gander_65 Jun 9, 2016 1:53 PM Flag

    Whyioc, I'm not planning on attending. I haven't spoken to Gaylen. I hope someone records it so that a transcript can be distributed to shareholders at a website. Responses to legitimate questions would go a long way to swaying voters on the deal. I think the vote for directors, etc. is premature. Hopefully, the Yukon court will agree.
    JMO
    Gander

  • Reply to

    Hession: Corporate Thief & POS

    by pardontheinterruption Jun 8, 2016 3:17 PM
    gander_65 gander_65 Jun 8, 2016 10:20 PM Flag

    iluv, do you know the stock swap terms beyond 8.05 sh/osh per 1 sh/ioc?
    I haven't found (it may be in one of the news stories and I missed it), a "collar" by date or share price that locks the $ value down. The 8.05X seems fixed. Do the share prices float until final shareholder approval date, or has the lock-in of (US)$40.25 and 8.05X shares already been determined?
    If it has already been determined, if you sell shares now, do you still get CVR participation?
    I haven't voted my shares yet and am leaning to blue. I just want the deal delayed until we can see the details and know if IOC has properly exercised fiduciary responsibility.
    You're comments would be appreciated.
    Gander

  • Reply to

    Second white proxy landed

    by libtardius_maximus Jun 4, 2016 2:21 PM
    gander_65 gander_65 Jun 4, 2016 5:39 PM Flag

    IOC letter of May 26 says Phil's low of 10+T's is too high. Rough math: 10T -6T = 4T x $6 = $24/IOC share. IOC says this is too high and not realistic. MH and the board will not pay us $24/share for the CVR.
    The deal stinks.
    JMO
    Gander

  • gander_65 gander_65 Jun 4, 2016 1:29 PM Flag

    Another difference in the two proxy letters received: The May 4 letter doesn't mention any buy-out offer other than OSH. The May 26 letter mentions that in the first quarter of 2016, IOC received several "unsolicited conditional proposals" to acquire the entire corporation. OSH was just one of the proposals. I don't remember getting an announcement from IOC of this significant and material event or any details of the competing offers. Did anyone else?
    Now IOC BOD and MH want us to pass the deal before we see it? Is Nancy Pelosi the new PR representative for IOC? "You have to pass the healthcare bill before you get to see what's inside it!"
    I want to see the details of OSH offer, AND the other offers. If it is well defined/valued and is the best offer, then shareholders will support it. If not, we can insist that the management team do the job for which they are paid handsomely.

    Another thought: I have a hard time believing that Phil just wants to "control" IOC as claimed by MH/BOD.
    If that were true, Phil would insist on a vote for new directors before seeing details of OSH offer. He is asking for offer details first. This seems a reasonable and responsible request.
    It's ironic that IOC BOD/CEO pushes for the first order of business to be the vote that regardless of the outcome, they lose their jobs. If they let shareholders vote on the deal first, they could be retained to negotiate with OSH or one of the other several offers.

    JMO
    I could be wrong.

    Gander

  • gander_65 gander_65 Jun 4, 2016 12:41 PM Flag

    If I were attempting to convince a stockholder to vote with my white proxy plan, I wouldn't put a statement in a "facts" sheet saying, basically, that Phil's lowest estimate is higher than IOC's highest estimate of E-A reserves. This seems to bracket the number (less than Phil's lowest estimate), of T's, and suggests that IOC/OSH/TOT have already decided what CVR number will be. It looks like a statement that some legal counsel has advised to include (CYA!), so that later Hession can say, "we told you the potential amount for the CVR valuation in a letter on May 26, 2016."
    I don't know what Phil's lowest estimate was, but I feel that the difference between the 6+T's already confirmed and Phil's lowest estimate, equals the best CVR stockholders should expect. Anyone know what that number is?

    JMO
    Gander

  • I receive a white proxy request for one account for some shares with IOC management "facts" for rejecting blue proxy. That letter was dated May 4, 2016. Earlier this week I received a second white proxy request with a different "facts" letter for rejecting blue proxy. This one is dated May 26, 2016. It is much more aggressive and makes a statement that has me wondering if we are being prepped for the CVR being minimal.
    Here is the quote from the May 26 letter:
    "FACT: Mulacek's statements about the resource size are unreasonable and not reflective of any market commentary other than his own. Mr. Mulacek continues to speculate and throw out unsubstantiated numbers about the size of E-A resource without supporting data and which do not reflect reasonable independent assessment or market commentary. The LOW END of Mr. Mulacek's estimate range is WELL ABOVE the estimates provided through our independent resources certifier."
    It continues on to say that IF Mr. Mulacek's estimates were to come to fruition, we'll do really well by owning shares of the combined company.
    Hmmmmmm....
    I don't like the sound of this wording.

    Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

    Gander

  • Reply to

    The BLUE Proxy is landing!

    by oliver.gump May 27, 2016 4:08 PM
    gander_65 gander_65 May 29, 2016 2:56 PM Flag

    I think Phil's group is the best. I'm assuming that is the one you provided. I will submit my comments and questions to them.
    Thanks, again.
    Gander

  • Reply to

    The BLUE Proxy is landing!

    by oliver.gump May 27, 2016 4:08 PM
    gander_65 gander_65 May 29, 2016 2:49 PM Flag

    Thanks OG.
    Do you have an email address?
    Gander

  • Reply to

    The BLUE Proxy is landing!

    by oliver.gump May 27, 2016 4:08 PM
    gander_65 gander_65 May 29, 2016 2:16 PM Flag

    OG, I'm interested in voting for a "better deal", but I (and probably others), would like to know what the plan moving forward entails. I agree that MH's plan has been self serving, potentially complicit with OSH/TOT/PNG gov't, and destructive of IOC resources, and that the BOD is nothing more than a bunch of MH groupies. My concern is that while throwing them all out of power is, potentially, a good start, what is the "plan" going forward? I'm not disagreeing that they need to go. We're on the same page. There will be financial, market, and political impacts if we are able to toss the existing management. I'm sure you have considered these implications and could shed some light on these critical elements. I don't know if you have any way to know, but an announcement by one of the big 3 holders of IOC against the existing mercenaries at IOC would certainly get a groundswell of blue proxies.
    Is there a website or contact point where a plan is outlined?
    Just for nostalgia sake, I think selling an interest in PRL15 provided credibility for IOC. I think selling the refinery was a mistake.
    Just my opinion. I could be wrong.

    Gander

  • Reply to

    So many idiot comments on yahoo....

    by heathersoil May 25, 2016 8:26 PM
    gander_65 gander_65 May 26, 2016 12:56 AM Flag

    Haven't been on the board in a few months. I've been reading all the input and have mixed feelings on what's happening. I have a few questions that you may be able to address or shed some light on for my edification:

    1. If the BOD and MH could be replaced, how does IOC move forward financially. Obviously, there is going to be great expense and litigation if MH/BOD is stopped. Financing until Total makes their next payment on certification will be a challenge moving forward.
    2. What is the opinion of Civelli, Wells Fargo, American and other major holders?
    3. Peter O'Neill and the PNG government seem to be thrilled with the deal. What would they do to IOC if they didn't like someone upsetting OSH/TOT/XOM plans?
    4. Is there some way to force MH/BOD back to the table with OSH? If we had a large enough block of votes, can we force existing BOD back to the negotiating table?

    I respect PM's capabilities and think he has learned a lot in the history of IOC. I'm just not sure we can turn the clock back now.

    Just my opinion. I could be wrong.
    Gander

IOC
41.68+1.01(+2.48%)Jun 28 4:02 PMEDT