1
1
Clerk's stamp:
2
3
_______________________________________________________
4
QUESTIONING OF SHANE KRISTOPHER ABEL
5
AFFIDAVIT SWORN NOVEMBER 7, 2013
6
BY MS. B.L. GROSSMAN
7
HELD NOVEMBER 7, 2013
8
_______________________________________________________
9
COURT FILE NUMBER
1301-11352
10
11
COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA
12
13
JUDICIAL CENTRE
Calgary
APPLICANT(S)
In the matter of the
14
15
16
Companies' Creditors
17
Arrangement Act, R.S.C. 1985,
18
C.C-36, as amended and in the
19
matter of the Business
20
Corporations Act, R.S.A. 2000,
21
C.B-9, as amended and in the
22
matter of Lone Pine Resources
23
Canada Ltd., Lone Pine
24
Resources (Holdings) Inc.,
25
Lone Pine Resources Inc.,
26
Wiser Oil Delaware, LLC and
27
Wiser Delaware LLC
2
1
DOCUMENT
2
_______________________________________________________
3
Taken before Toni Rizzoli, Official Court Reporter,
4
pursuant to Rules 5.26, 6.20, and 13.46 of the Court of
5
Queen's Bench of Alberta, at the offices of Bennett
6
Jones LLP, Calgary, Alberta.
7
_______________________________________________________
8
FOR THE LONE PINE GROUP OF COMPANIES:
9
C. Simard
10
Bennett Jones LLP
11
4500, 855-2 Street S.W.
12
Calgary, Alberta
13
(403)298-3100
QUESTIONING ON AFFIDAVIT
14
15
FOR CERTAIN SHAREHOLDERS:
16
B.L. Grossman
17
R. Jacobs
18
Dentons Canada LLP
19
400, 77 King Street West
20
Toronto, Ontario
21
(416)863-4417
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
1
FOR THE MONITOR:
2
W.W. MacLeod
3
McCarthy Tétrault LLP
4
3300, 421-7 Avenue S.W.
5
Calgary, Alberta
6
(403)260-3710
7
8
FOR THE LENDING SYNDICATE:
9
R.S. Van de Mosselaer
10
Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP
11
3700, 400-3 Avenue S.W.
12
Calgary, Alberta
13
(403)267-8196
14
15
FOR THE INITIAL CONSENTING NOTE HOLDERS:
16
B. O'Neill (not present)
17
Goodmans LLP
18
3400, 333 Bay Street
19
Toronto, Ontario
20
(416)849-6017
21
22
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER:
23
Toni Rizzoli, CSR(A)
24
Dicta Court Reporting Inc.
25
760, 1015-4 Street S.W.
26
Calgary, Alberta
27
(403)531-0590
4
1
(PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED AT 3:06 PM)
2
SHANE KRISTOPHER ABEL, Affirmed, Examined by
3
Ms. Grossman
4
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Mr. Abel, I represent certain
5
shareholders who have brought an application for a
6
representation order and other relief returnable on
7
November 8th, 2013, and you have sworn affidavit number
8
2 on November 7th, 2013, in that -- in connection with
9
their application, and I'm here to cross-examine you on
10
your affidavit with respect to matters that are
11
relevant to my clients' application.
12
that?
You understand
13
A
I do.
14
Q
And you've -- instead of taking an oath, you've
15
affirmed, but you understand that you're here to tell
16
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
17
A
Yes, ma'am.
18
Q
You've indicated in your affidavit that you are the
19
vice-president finance and chief financial officer for
20
both Lone Pine Resources Canada Ltd., the Canadian sub,
21
and Lone Pine Resources Inc., the US parent.
22
have you held that position -- or those positions?
23
A
How long
I have held the position of vice-president finance and
24
chief financial officer of those two entities since
25
June of this year, June 2013.
26
position of vice-president finance and treasurer since
27
early July 2011.
I previously held the
5
1
Q
2
So you were involved with those entities when the
American parent company -- I'll just call it "LPRI" --
3
A
M-hm.
4
Q
-- went public through its IPO?
5
A
I was not.
6
Q
Shortly after.
7
A
-- the initial public offering.
8
Q
So it was already a public company --
9
A
Yeah.
10
Q
-- at the time you joined?
11
A
It went public on May the 26th, 2011.
I joined shortly after --
My start date
12
was, I believe, around June 28th, 2011.
13
MS. GROSSMAN:
14
minute.
15
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
16
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Just off the record for a
Can you just tell me briefly
17
what your educational background and professional
18
credentials are?
19
A
My educational background is I have a bachelor of
20
commerce degree in honours, finance, and accounting
21
from the University of Saskatchewan.
22
April of 2003.
23
approximately eight-and-a-half years as an investment
24
banker at BMO Capital Markets in Calgary.
25
professional credentials is (sic) that I am a CFA
26
charterholder and have been since July of 2006.
27
Q
I'm sorry.
I graduated in
Prior to joining Lone Pine, I spent
My
I didn't get the professional credential.
6
1
A
CFA --
2
Q
CFA.
3
A
-- charterholder.
4
Q
So a certified --
5
A
Chartered --
6
Q
-- financial analyst?
7
A
Chartered financial analyst.
8
Q
Chartered financial analyst.
9
A
If you don't say it correctly, they'll kick you out of
10
the program.
11
Q
Okay.
12
A
No, no.
13
Q
Or internal accounting?
14
A
No.
15
Q
Are you a person at the Lone Pine entities who is
16
But you're not any form of accountant?
I've never worked in public accounting.
responsible for investor relations?
17
A
Yes, I am.
18
Q
I'm showing you an email exchange that purports to be
19
an email exchange between yourself and a shareholder in
20
the parent Lone Pine company --
21
A
Yeah.
22
Q
-- LPRI, by the name of Adam Marquardt.
So it's his
23
email to you and --
24
MR. SIMARD:
25
first --
26
MS. GROSSMAN:
Yes.
27
MR. SIMARD:
-- Ms. Grossman.
I'm going to look at that
7
1
MS. GROSSMAN:
By all means.
2
give you one copy to --
3
MR. SIMARD:
4
give a copy to Mr. Abel.
5
document being provided to him or questions being asked
6
on it.
7
MS. GROSSMAN:
8
the same protocol we did, then, when Mr. Olson was
9
cross-examined.
No.
I'm going to
I'm not going to have you
I'm objecting to this
Okay.
Well, then we'll follow
Since I've referred to the document
10
and you're not allowing me to put it to the witness,
11
we'll mark it as Exhibit A for Identification.
12
MR. SIMARD:
13
him, and he hasn't answered questions, so --
14
MS. GROSSMAN:
I have put it to him.
15
MR. SIMARD:
-- there's nothing to
16
identify.
17
MS. GROSSMAN:
18
intercepted the document as I put it to him, so I don't
19
think your interception can prevent the record from
20
showing what document I attempted to put to the witness
21
and you intercepted.
22
for Identification.
23
MR. SIMARD:
24
from yesterday, you are -- you are doing so under
25
protest from me.
26
MS. GROSSMAN:
27
protest.
Well, you haven't put it to
I have put it to him.
You
I'm going to mark it as Exhibit A
And following our terminology
Okay.
Exhibit A under
8
1
EXHIBIT A FOR IDENTIFICATION - Email exchange
2
between Shane Abel and Adam Marquardt
3
(Subject to protest)
4
Q
5
6
MS. GROSSMAN:
Mr. Abel, is your email
address [email protected]?
A
Yes, it is.
7
MR. SIMARD:
8
for the record.
9
MS. GROSSMAN:
10
Maybe you should spell "Abel"
A -- yes.
S-K, Abel, A-B-E-L
@lonepineresources.com.
11
A
Yes.
That is my email address.
12
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
On September 20th of 2013, had
13
the Lone Pine entities started any paperwork in
14
connection with their insolvency filing that was made
15
on -- five days later on September 25th, 2013?
16
MR. SIMARD:
17
that question, and I can tell you that my position
18
hasn't changed from yesterday; namely, that any
19
question that you ask which goes to establishing the
20
claims made by your clients, claims against companies,
21
directors, or officers, or the allegations made by your
22
clients with respect to asset values.
23
matters that are not in issue tomorrow at the
24
application.
25
decided via the claims process or at a sanction order
26
hearing.
27
effectively seek to discover this witness on those
Ms. Grossman, I'm objecting to
They won't be decided.
Those are
They will be
So I'll object to any questions that
9
1
topics.
2
(OBJECTION)
3
MS. GROSSMAN:
4
proper question for the reasons I articulated
5
yesterday, but most importantly, we're here today on
6
the cross-examination, and the credibility of Mr. Abel
7
is in issue.
8
that go to his credibility and his honesty and
9
integrity, and I'm putting this document to him, and
It's my position that it's a
I am entitled to ask him any questions
10
I'll put on the record the series of questions that I
11
wish to ask him.
12
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
And I anticipate, Mr. Abel,
13
that your counsel will simply object to them, so don't
14
respond until you see what your counsel does.
15
MS. GROSSMAN:
16
questions going to the credibility of Mr. Abel.
17
MR. SIMARD:
Go ahead.
18
MS. GROSSMAN:
That was the first question,
19
the one I put on the record that you objected to.
20
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
And this is a line of
Mr. Abel, I put it to you
21
that, indeed, five days before the insolvency filing,
22
the companies had not only prepared but had in
23
readiness to file the insolvency papers that they
24
ultimately filed on September 25th, 2013.
25
agree?
26
MR. SIMARD:
27
Ms. Grossman.
Do you
I object on the same basis,
10
1
2
(OBJECTION)
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I put it to you that there
3
were rumours, as of September 20th, 2013, that the
4
companies were about to make an insolvency filing.
5
you agree?
6
MR. SIMARD:
7
basis.
8
(OBJECTION)
9
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Do
Again, I object on the same
And that the shareholders,
10
including, in particular, Adam Marquardt, corresponded
11
with you directly to find out if there was any truth to
12
those rumours, and that was the substance of the
13
question that he was asking you on September 20th,
14
2013.
15
MR. SIMARD:
16
basis.
17
(OBJECTION)
18
Q
Do you agree?
MS. GROSSMAN:
Again, I object on the same
And I put it to you that you
19
understood that what he was asking you on September
20
20th, 2013, is whether or not there was any truth to
21
the rumours that the Lone Pine entities were about to
22
make an insolvency filing.
23
your understanding?
24
MR. SIMARD:
25
basis.
26
(OBJECTION)
27
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Do you agree that that was
I object again on the same
And I put it to you that, when
11
1
you responded to him on September 20th, 2013, that you
2
can't comment on the Chapter 11 rumours that
3
Mr. Marquardt refers to but that you cautioned
4
Mr. Marquardt not to believe everything he hears, that
5
you were, in fact, misleading Mr. Marquardt into
6
believing that there was no truth to those rumours,
7
when you, in fact, knew that the rumours were
8
absolutely true; do you agree?
9
MR. SIMARD:
10
basis.
11
(OBJECTION)
12
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Again, I object on the same
And I put it to you, sir,
13
that, in so misleading Mr. Marquardt, you were being
14
dishonest by any ordinary interpretation of the word
15
"dishonest"; do you agree?
16
MR. SIMARD:
17
(OBJECTION)
18
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I object on the same basis.
Mr. Abel, I'm showing you and
19
your counsel a transcript of an August 9th, 2013, Q2
20
earnings call for LPRI.
21
MR. SIMARD:
22
going to put that in front of him, and I will object to
23
questions about it on the same basis I've described
24
already.
25
putting it in front of the witness.
26
(OBJECTION)
27
MS. GROSSMAN:
Again, Ms. Grossman, I'm not
So you've handed it to me, and I'm not
Then what I will do is mark as
12
1
Exhibit B for Identification the LPRI Q2 2013 results
2
earnings call transcript that took place -- or is dated
3
August 9th, 2013, at 12 PM eastern time so the record
4
clearly shows the document I attempted to put to the
5
witness and that you intercepted and is the document
6
which forms a basis of my next series of questions.
7
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
And again, Mr. Abel, I
8
anticipate that your counsel will object to the
9
questions, so don't answer them until you give him an
10
opportunity to do whatever it is he is going to do.
11
MR. SIMARD:
12
marking of the exhibit is -- will be noted to be over
13
my protest.
14
MS. GROSSMAN:
15
B under protest.
Thank you.
And as before, the
So we'll mark this as Exhibit
16
EXHIBIT B FOR IDENTIFICATION - Lone Pine
17
Resources Inc. Q2 2013 results earnings call
18
transcript dated August 9, 2013, at 12 PM
19
eastern time (Subject to protest)
20
21
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Mr. Abel, I understand that
22
you participated in the August 9th, 2013, 12 PM eastern
23
time earnings results conference call that took place
24
to discuss the Q2 2013 results of Lone Pine Resources;
25
is that correct?
26
MR. SIMARD:
27
Ms. Grossman.
I object on the same basis,
13
1
2
(OBJECTION)
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
And I understand, from this
3
transcript that's marked Exhibit B under protest, that
4
a private investor by the name of Mike Shore asked the
5
question of you and Tim Granger in the following terms:
6
(as read)
7
Hi, Tim and Shane, is it your belief -- we
8
are not asking specifically about any deals
9
you guys are looking at, but it is the
10
company, and its own of insolvency.
[And the
11
answer from Mr. Granger was] We don't believe
12
the company in an insolvent state at the
13
current time, no.
14
Was that -- when Mr. Granger speaks of the royal "we",
15
was he speaking of his own belief and your belief as
16
well when he made that statement?
17
MR. SIMARD:
18
(OBJECTION)
19
MS. GROSSMAN:
20
previously objected?
21
MR. SIMARD:
22
I'll tell you, but I may just be brief.
23
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Objection.
On the same grounds you've
Yes.
If my grounds change,
And then the same investor --
24
private investor, Mike Shore, asks -- and then that
25
answer: (as read)
26
Do you, Tim, believe that you are then
27
running the company on behalf of current
14
1
shareholders?
2
we are running the company on behalf of all
3
stakeholders in the company at current time.
4
Was that statement by Mr. Granger that "we believe" a
5
statement of your belief as well, Mr. Abel?
6
MR. SIMARD:
7
(OBJECTION)
8
Q
9
MS. GROSSMAN:
[And Tim Granger] We believe
Objection.
And then the private investor,
Mike Shore, asks the question: (as read)
10
And so then, when you just think about that,
11
if you look at how the stock was performing
12
from when you began your work at Lone Pine is
13
how to speak to why that's been the case and
14
what the plan is to get from where you are
15
today to some outcome that looks a little bit
16
more favourable to current equity holders.
17
[And Tim Granger, according to the transcript
18
responds] Like we said, the company does have
19
a liquidity issue, and the company is to
20
resolve its structure.
21
Was that your belief as of August 9th, 2013, that the
22
problem the company had was a liquidity issue?
23
MR. SIMARD:
24
(OBJECTION)
25
26
27
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Objection.
And Tim Granger goes on in his
answer: (as read)
We are going to a number of profitable
15
1
dialogues with a number of parties, and in
2
attempt to resolve that within the solution
3
at hand, yes, we believe then, with
4
successful development in EB [EBI] drilling
5
and water flood.
6
should have some positive momentum, but we
7
need to go through a series of steps to get
8
there.
9
As I said, the share price
Mr. Abel, was it your belief, as of August 9th, 2013,
10
that the share price should have some positive
11
momentum?
12
MR. SIMARD:
13
(OBJECTION)
14
15
Q
I object.
MS. GROSSMAN:
his answer:
And Mr. Granger continues with
(as read)
16
So I guess the answer to your question, that
17
we believe there is a solution.
18
prepared to discuss with that solution here
19
or in any details here today, but the
20
management team and the board are keenly
21
focused on effecting a solution would have a
22
positive impact on the share price going
23
forward in the future.
We are not
24
Were you part of the management team on August 9th,
25
2013, that was keenly focused on effecting a solution
26
that would have a positive impact on the share price
27
going forward in the future?
16
1
MR. SIMARD:
2
(OBJECTION)
3
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Objection.
The Lone Pine entities made
4
their insolvency filing about six weeks after the
5
August 9th, 2013, conference call, the transcript of
6
which I just referred to.
Would you agree?
7
A
Yes, I do.
8
Q
And do you also agree that the liquidity crisis or
9
liquidity problem referred to in the August 9th, 2013,
10
transcript is the insolvency that precipitated the
11
insolvency filing?
12
MR. SIMARD:
13
stated already and also because the question calls for
14
a legal answer.
15
(OBJECTION)
16
MS. GROSSMAN:
17
for a legal answer.
18
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I'll object on the basis
I don't agree that it calls
It calls for a finance answer.
When the company made its
19
filing on September 25th, 2013, did it file because it
20
was failing to pay its creditors generally as their
21
debts came due?
22
MR. SIMARD:
23
(OBJECTION)
24
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I object.
Were you familiar with the
25
assets that the Lone Pine entities had both in August
26
of 2013 and when the entities made their insolvency
27
filing on September 25th, 2013?
17
1
MR. SIMARD:
2
(OBJECTION)
3
Q
I object.
MS. GROSSMAN:
One of the assets that
4
Mr. Granger specifically referred to in the affidavit
5
that he swore in support of the CCAA filing on
6
September 25th, 2013, is a NAFTA claim that the Lone
7
Pine entities have.
8
MR. SIMARD:
9
same basis.
10
(OBJECTION)
11
MS. GROSSMAN:
Remind me what that basis is.
12
MR. SIMARD:
The basis is the questions
13
you're asking right now are going to issues that are
14
not before the Court and not raised by your application
15
to be heard tomorrow.
16
you want to pursue, which are the asset value of the
17
company's assets and claims that your clients may have
18
against the company, directors, and officers --
19
MS. GROSSMAN:
Let me just --
20
MR. SIMARD:
-- the merits of those claims
21
and allegations.
22
MS. GROSSMAN:
Let me just elaborate.
23
MR. SIMARD:
Sure.
24
MS. GROSSMAN:
It's our position and quite
25
clearly set out in our application that there is every
26
indication here that shareholders are -- to put it
27
globally -- in the money, and that is a value issue.
Are you familiar with that asset?
I'm going to object on the
They go to the ultimate issues
18
1
If shareholders are in the money, they are a
2
stakeholder that is very much at the table and whose
3
interests should be protected where there is a plan
4
that is contemplated that purports to wipe them out.
5
So it's a linchpin of our application that there are
6
indications that the shareholders are in the money, and
7
that is what I am exploring.
8
that the shareholders have against the company, nor am
9
I exploring a claim that the shareholders have against
I'm not exploring a claim
10
the directors and officers.
11
shareholders are stakeholders whose interests need to
12
be protected because, unlike many insolvencies, where
13
shareholders are clearly out of the money, here we have
14
a group of shareholders where there is every indication
15
that the shareholders are in the money.
16
I am exploring that the
On that basis, I -- I would ask you to consider,
17
Mr. Simard.
This is quite a legitimate line of
18
inquiry.
19
application, and if you prevent me from exploring these
20
issues, I will be asking that the entire affidavit of
21
Mr. Abel be struck and not be considered on this
22
application on the basis that you have obstructed the
23
cross-examination of the witness.
24
MR. SIMARD:
25
exploring is your clients' ultimate claim, which I have
26
told you repeatedly will be at issue and will be
27
addressed by the Court in a sanction hearing after a
It is within the four corners of our
Ms. Grossman, what you are
19
1
vote on a plan.
It is not an issue that will be
2
decided tomorrow.
3
establish.
That's what you're seeking to
4
With respect to Mr. Abel's affidavit, you haven't
5
even started to cross-examine on it, and so you may --
6
you can make your argument to the judge tomorrow and
7
suggest that it should be struck, but I haven't heard
8
anything that would constitute cross-examination on
9
that affidavit.
This is very much a discovery in which
10
you're trying to get into issues that will not be
11
before the Court tomorrow.
12
MS. GROSSMAN:
13
issue will be before the Court tomorrow, and should you
14
intend to make any submission tomorrow that the
15
shareholders are not in the money here, I will be
16
taking great exception to your precluding any
17
cross-examination of this witness, the only witness of
18
the companies, on that issue.
19
That's my position.
You know my position that the
I just should note for the record that, when a
20
witness swears an affidavit in opposition to an
21
application, it is legitimate cross-examination, so
22
long as the cross-examination comes within four corners
23
of the application or matter before the Court.
24
not confined to the four corners of his affidavit.
25
I am very much cross-examining the witness because he
26
swore an affidavit, and I am within the scope, in my
27
submission, of our application.
I am
So
I've explained to you
20
1
why that is, and on the basis of your objection, I
2
trust we will not hear from you tomorrow that there's
3
no indication that the shareholders are in the money or
4
that it's plain that the shareholders are out of the
5
money.
6
MR. SIMARD:
7
hear from me tomorrow is exactly what I've told you
8
today, which is the issue of whether the shareholders
9
are in the money or out of the money, that is, the
I can tell you what you will
10
asset value will be an issue dealt with at the sanction
11
hearing.
12
MS. GROSSMAN:
13
not be decided tomorrow, and where we differ is that I
14
say that it's a relevant factor to what will be decided
15
tomorrow, and on that basis, I'm entitled to explore
16
it.
17
and we'll have to each govern ourselves accordingly.
18
MR. SIMARD:
19
Q
It will not be decided tomorrow.
I think we agree that it will
So I think we understand each other's positions,
We do.
MS. GROSSMAN:
Now, I want to take you to the
20
10-K that the company filed.
It's a rather large
21
document.
22
counsel.
23
December 31st, 2012, and I've flagged a few pages just
24
to make it easier to navigate the document, but if
25
you'll turn to my last flag, you'll see that the date
26
of the document is March 14th, 2013.
27
it was signed by David Fitzpatrick, interim chief
I have one for you, and I have one for your
And this is for the fiscal year ended
That's the date
21
1
executive officer, and by a series of other people,
2
including -- these are facsimile signatures -- Shane K.
3
Abel.
4
MR. SIMARD:
5
even more clearly irrelevant to the issues raised in
6
your application because it is, obviously, with respect
7
to yearend -- fiscal yearend December 31, 2012.
8
historical; therefore, it cannot relate to asset value
9
of the company's assets presently and is clearly only
10
relevant to claims that your clients may wish to make
11
against the company, its directors, or officers.
12
will object to the exhibiting of this document or
13
questions asked on it.
14
(OBJECTION)
15
MS. GROSSMAN:
16
So it's 'C', under process, and I'll ask my series of
17
questions, and you can object or not object as you see
18
fit.
19
MR. SIMARD:
You are the Shane K. Abel who signed this?
Ms. Grossman, this document is
It's
We'll mark it in the same way.
Very good.
20
EXHIBIT C FOR IDENTIFICATION - 10-K filed by
21
Lone Pine Resources for the fiscal yearend
22
December 31, 2012, dated March 14, 2013
23
(Subject to protest)
24
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
So I
Let me ask you just generally,
25
Mr. Abel, in your position, you are required to sign
26
10-K and 10-Q forms with the SEC?
27
MR. SIMARD:
Objection on the same basis.
22
1
2
(OBJECTION)
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
And I have flagged page 48 in
3
this document, Exhibit C for Identification, because
4
there's a discussion that starts on page 48 and
5
continues on page 49 concerning the NAFTA arbitration.
6
Is that the same NAFTA arbitration that Mr. Granger
7
refers to in his affidavit filed in support of the CCAA
8
filing?
9
MR. SIMARD:
10
(OBJECTION)
11
Q
Objection.
MS. GROSSMAN:
I'm assuming that the Lone
12
Pine companies have only one NAFTA arbitration going on
13
from December of 2012 until September 25th, 2013; is
14
that a fair assumption?
15
MR. SIMARD:
16
speak for themselves.
17
is the same and can only be relevant for the same
18
purpose, which isn't a relevant purpose for tomorrow.
19
MS. GROSSMAN:
20
We're in disagreement.
21
MR. SIMARD:
22
same basis.
23
(OBJECTION)
24
25
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
48, commencing:
Ms. Grossman, the documents
This whole line of questioning
You have my position on that.
Okay.
I object, then, on the
In the last paragraph, on page
(as read)
26
Although there is no guarantee regarding the
27
outcome and receipt a fair compensation
23
1
pursuant to the claim ...
2
It is stated that:
(as read)
3
We [which I assume is a reference to the
4
company] believe that the expropriation of
5
our exploration permit, pursuant to Bill 18,
6
was a violation of NAFTA by the government of
7
Quebec, for which the government of Canada is
8
responsible, and that Lone Pine, a Delaware
9
corporation, is entitled to full compensation
10
for the expropriation.
The notice of intent
11
exerts that the expropriation was arbitrary,
12
capricious, and without justification, and we
13
are seeking in excess of 250 million in
14
compensation for the expropriated rights
15
based on development plans, plus additional
16
costs and further relief as the arbitral
17
tribunal may deem just and appropriate.
18
At the time of this 10-K, did the Lone Pine entities
19
have a belief in the merits of the NAFTA arbitration
20
claim they were asserting?
21
MR. SIMARD:
22
(OBJECTION)
23
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Objection on the same basis.
Did -- at that point in time,
24
did the Lone Pine entities have a belief that there
25
would be a very substantial recovery by the Lone Pine
26
entities pursuant to this NAFTA arbitration claim?
27
MR. SIMARD:
I object on the same basis.
24
1
2
(OBJECTION)
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
And was that still the belief
3
of the Lone Pine companies when they made their
4
insolvency filing on September 25th, 2013?
5
MR. SIMARD:
6
(OBJECTION)
7
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I object on the same basis.
And is that -- does that
8
continue to be the belief of the Lone Pine entities
9
today, on November 7th, 2013?
10
MR. SIMARD:
11
(OBJECTION)
12
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I object on the same basis.
Reading from page 49 of this
13
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, which
14
document is dated March 14th, 2013, it goes on to talk
15
about the accounting treatment in the financial
16
statements of Lone Pine for this NAFTA claim, and in
17
that regard, it states as follows: (as read)
18
[Quote] Although we believe that the
19
government of Canada will be required to
20
compensate us for the fair market value of
21
the expropriated permit, we have not
22
recognized any asset for such claim in our
23
consolidated financial statements.
24
Given that you signed this 10-K, may I take it that, as
25
far as you were concerned, that was an accurate
26
statement of the accounting treatment of the NAFTA
27
claim as of March 2013, the date of the 10-K?
25
1
MR. SIMARD:
2
(OBJECTION)
3
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I object on the same basis.
And does that -- is that an
4
accurate statement -- does it continue to be an
5
accurate statement today?
6
reflect how the company -- or the companies have been
7
dealing with the NAFTA claim, that is, they have not
8
been showing any value for it?
9
that it will result in a recovery, they have not been
Does that continue to
Despite their belief
10
reflecting any value for it in the financial
11
statements?
12
MR. SIMARD:
13
(OBJECTION)
14
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I object on the same basis.
I'm going to take you -- refer
15
you to Mr. Granger's affidavit sworn September 25th,
16
2013, in support of the CCAA filing and, in particular,
17
to paragraph 64 of his affidavit where he refers to the
18
assets of the Lone Pine entities and paragraph 68 of
19
his affidavit, where he refers to the liabilities of
20
the Lone Pine entities.
21
assets, he says that -- and I'm quoting here: (as read)
And with reference to the
22
The applicants' total consolidated assets
23
with a book value of approximately 597
24
million. [End quote]
25
And am I correct, based on what I've referred you to in
26
the 10-K, that the quarter-of-a-billion-dollar NAFTA
27
claim is in addition to, not included within, the
26
1
consolidated assets with a book value of approximately
2
597 million?
3
MR. SIMARD:
4
(OBJECTION)
5
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
6
Q
I object on the same basis.
MS. GROSSMAN:
Mr. Abel, I understand that
7
one of the assets of the Lone Pine entities are some
8
lands they hold in the Liaird Basin; is that correct?
9
MR. SIMARD:
Don't answer.
10
on the same basis.
11
(OBJECTION)
12
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Same objection,
And I'm showing to your
13
counsel and to you a press release put out by Lone
14
Pine -- or "news release", as it's called, dated May
15
6th, 2013, relating to the assets of Lone Pine in the
16
Liaird Basin.
17
release that Lone Pine put out on the date indicated?
18
MR. SIMARD:
19
Ms. Grossman, I'll object to the exhibiting of this
20
document or questions asked about it.
21
(OBJECTION)
22
MS. GROSSMAN:
23
letter exhibit for identification under protest on the
24
same basis as previous ones.
Can you identify this for me as a press
For the same basis stated,
We'll mark this as the next
25
EXHIBIT D FOR IDENTIFICATION - News release
26
put out by Lone Pine dated May 6, 2013
27
(Subject to protest)
27
1
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
In this May 6th, 2013, news
2
release, it is stated that Lone Pine's application for
3
a CDD to the National Energy Board was granted.
4
and I now quote: (as read)
And --
5
Lone Pine has now contacted Aboriginal
6
Affairs and Northern Development Canada for
7
the standard 21-year lease extension in
8
accordance with Section 62 of the Canada Oil
9
and Gas Lease Regulations.
10
Did Lone Pine receive the 21-year lease extension that
11
it applied to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern
12
Development Canada for?
13
MR. SIMARD:
14
(OBJECTION)
15
16
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I object on the same basis.
Also in the news release, in
the fourth paragraph, it states: (as read)
17
Tim Granger, president and chief executive
18
officer of Lone Pine, commented:
19
there's a quotation] The receipt of this CDD
20
is an important step in the company's shale
21
gas development strategy.
22
have been granted this CDD, which is the
23
first of its kind for an unconventional
24
resource play and has been granted by the
25
National Energy Board.
26
Lone Pine continues to believe the full value
27
of our diverse and deep asset base is not
[And
We are happy to
28
1
currently being reflected in trading values
2
and is actively pursuing transactions aimed
3
at further reducing this valuation gap.
4
Do you agree with the statement made by Tim Granger in
5
this press release that it was Lone Pine's belief on
6
May 6th, 2013, that the full value of Lone Pine's
7
diverse and deep asset base was not then being
8
reflected in trading values for its shares?
9
MR. SIMARD:
10
(OBJECTION)
11
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I object on the same basis.
And then shortly thereafter,
12
it appears that Mr. Granger gave an interview in
13
something called the Northern Journal, and the
14
interview was May 13th, 2013, on the same topic.
15
showing your counsel, and I'm trying to show you a copy
16
of this journal article.
17
MR. SIMARD:
18
objecting to the exhibiting of this document, I am not
19
putting it before Mr. Abel.
20
(OBJECTION)
21
MS. GROSSMAN:
22
then for identification under protest as Exhibit 'E'.
I'm
And on the basis that I am
Okay.
It's going to be marked
23
EXHIBIT E FOR IDENTIFICATION - Article in the
24
Northern Journal dated May 13, 2013 (Subject
25
to protest)
26
27
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Mr. Abel, I'm going to ask you
if you can identify this journal article as reflecting
29
1
an interview, which, in fact, took place or comments
2
that were, in fact, made by Mr. Granger?
3
MR. SIMARD:
4
(OBJECTION)
5
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Objection on the same basis.
According to page 1 of the
6
article dated May 13th, 2013, at 7:17 PM, reading from
7
the first page and the third paragraph:
(as read)
8
Lone Pine president and CEO, Tim Granger,
9
told the Journal the company is feeling
10
optimistic about the find.
11
Was that an accurate statement of the company's view of
12
the Liaird Basin find as at that date?
13
MR. SIMARD:
14
(OBJECTION)
15
Q
16
MS. GROSSMAN:
stating:
I object on the same basis.
It quotes Mr. Granger as
(as read)
17
It's very significant.
It would be
18
significant for almost any company.
19
of the resource there is quite large.
The size
20
Were those accurate statements by Mr. Granger as of May
21
13th, 2013?
22
MR. SIMARD:
23
(OBJECTION)
24
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I object on the same basis.
And then over on the second
25
page of the article, midway down the page is the
26
following comment attributed to Mr. Granger: (as read)
27
While not quite economically feasible today,
30
1
Granger said he expects the project to become
2
more viable in late 2014 or early 2015 based
3
on current market prediction for natural gas.
4
Is that statement attributed to Mr. Granger an accurate
5
statement of Lone Pine's view of when the value from
6
the Liaird Basin would be realized by Lone Pine?
7
MR. SIMARD:
8
(OBJECTION)
9
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Objection on the same basis.
Do you agree with me that it
10
would be the shareholders in place in 2014 and 2015 who
11
would reap the fruits of the Liaird Basin asset that
12
Lone Pine has today?
13
MR. SIMARD:
14
(OBJECTION)
15
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Objection on the same basis.
The same place, on page 2 of
16
the article, there's actually a quotation from
17
Mr. Granger: (as read)
18
"We are quite optimistic", he said.
"We
19
still need one more level of approval, and
20
then we can start to get a bit more serious
21
about planning."
22
To the best of your knowledge, is that an accurate
23
quote given by Mr. Granger to the author of this
24
article in the Northern Journal on or about May 13th,
25
2013?
26
MR. SIMARD:
27
(OBJECTION)
Objection on the same basis.
31
1
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
And I suggest to you that the
2
one more level of approval that Mr. Granger was
3
referring in that article was the 21-year lease renewal
4
that was referenced to in the press release that I
5
showed you previously, which was marked as Exhibit D.
6
Would you agree?
7
MR. SIMARD:
8
(OBJECTION)
9
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I object on the same basis.
What is that status of that
10
application for the 21-year lease renewal?
11
MR. SIMARD:
12
(OBJECTION)
13
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
I object on the same basis.
If -- I've asked you whether
14
Lone Pine has the 21-year lease renewal, and that's one
15
of the questions objected to.
16
answer to that question is that it does not yet have
17
the 21-year lease renewal, then my question, based on
18
such an answer, would be:
19
to receive the 21-year lease renewal?
20
And if not, why not?
21
MR. SIMARD:
22
(OBJECTION)
23
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
24
(ADJOURNMENT)
25
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
In the event that your
Does Lone Pine still expect
And if so, when?
I object on the same basis.
I want to take you to
26
paragraph 6 of your affidavit sworn November 7th where
27
you attach, as Exhibit 5, an email exchange that's
32
1
taking place between yourself and Andrew Peranick of
2
Bastogne Capital.
Are you familiar with this document?
3
A
I am.
4
Q
And if I'm reading it correctly, you have to read it
5
from the bottom up; is that correct?
The first inquiry
6
is the one at the bottom of the document, actually over
7
on to page 2?
8
A
That would be in chronological order, yeah.
9
Q
And so the question that it starts off with -- is Drew
10
or Andrew Peranick writing?
11
A
Drew is short for Andrew.
12
Q
Okay.
13
A
And he goes by Drew.
14
Q
Okay.
15
So it's Andrew Peranick of Bastogne Capital
writing to you and asking the question:
(as read)
16
Just curious, we spoke in the past about
17
taking the grace on the coupon payment.
18
He's talking there, wouldn't you agree with me, about
19
the bonds, the coupon payment on the bonds?
20
A
Yes, I agree.
21
Q
And he asks:
(as read)
22
I'm just curious if you took the grace today
23
or if you paid it?
24
Again, talking about the bonds, correct?
25
A
Yes, I agree with that.
26
Q
Okay.
27
And then you respond to that question by saying
"the interest payment is due today", and your response
33
1
is about the interest due on the bonds, correct?
2
A
Correct.
3
Q
And you go on to, in the next two sentences -- in the
4
next two sentences, you're continuing to talk about the
5
bonds, correct?
6
A
Yes.
7
Q
And then Andrew Peranick writes to you and says:
8
(as
read)
9
As you know, we are not involved in the name
10
but received a phone call today of note.
11
you call us?
Can
12
And I put it to you that, when you received Andrew
13
Peranick's last message, which is the first one
14
appearing on Exhibit 5, you understood that to be a
15
continuation of the dialogue you were having with him
16
about the bonds, correct?
17
lawyer for the answer, okay?
You have to answer --
18
MR. SIMARD:
He's -- he's looking to
19
see if I'm objecting, Ms. Grossman, given the number of
20
objections.
21
not looking at me for an answer.
22
A
You can't look at your
No.
I'm not objecting.
He can answer.
He's
I would agree that that email is about the previous
23
matter, which is the bonds that we had discussed in the
24
previous two email exchanges.
25
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
And I take it that the phrase,
26
"in the name", is some kind of industry lingo, and what
27
he's saying by that is, as you know, we -- being
34
1
Bastogne -- don't hold any of these bonds that we've
2
been discussing, correct?
3
it to be?
4
MR. SIMARD:
5
rephrase because you asked what he -- what he, Andrew,
6
meant?
7
Q
8
9
Thank you.
MS. GROSSMAN:
MR. SIMARD:
Q
That's what you understood
Yes.
I wanted you to
You understood him --
Yes, go ahead.
MS. GROSSMAN:
-- Andrew, to be saying, by
10
that phrase, "in the name", that we -- being
11
Bastogne Capital -- do not hold any of the bonds that
12
you and Andrew were just discussing in these email
13
exchanges?
14
A
I would say that, when he says "we are not involved in
15
the name", I believe that to mean he is neither
16
invested in the bonds nor the common equity.
17
Q
So you think his last comment to you suddenly embraces
18
the common equity, even though the entire discussion,
19
as you've just agreed with me, is about the bonds?
20
A
When you're talking to investors and they refer to "the
21
name", they generally mean the name Lone Pine Resources
22
and all the securities that we would be issuing under
23
that name.
24
Q
That's my belief.
But up until you got the last one, your belief was that
25
the only thing you were discussing with Andrew Peranick
26
was the bonds, not the shares of Lone Pine?
27
went through two email exchanges that you and he had,
We just
35
1
and you've already agreed with me that those exchanges
2
were about the bonds and only about the bonds.
3
A
4
5
But he's not specifically addressing the bonds.
He's
addressing the name Lone Pine, which -Q
I just want to make sure I understand your evidence.
6
Are we in agreement that his first email to you and
7
your first response to him is exclusively about the
8
bonds and not about the shares in Lone Pine?
9
A
Can you repeat that one more time?
10
MS. GROSSMAN:
I'll have the court reporter
11
read it back.
12
THE COURT REPORTER:
(By reading)
13
I just want to make sure I understand your
14
evidence.
15
email to you and your first response to him
16
is exclusively about the bonds and not about
17
the shares in Lone Pine?
Are we in agreement that his first
18
A
I don't -- I wouldn't agree with that.
19
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Is the concept -- I'm now
20
referring to his first email to you -- about grace on a
21
coupon payment at all applicable to shares -- common
22
shares in Lone Pine?
23
A
It is insofar as something happening or not happening
24
on the senior notes of Lone Pine would have an effect
25
on the trading of Lone Pine's common stock as well,
26
potentially.
27
Q
Let me put it this way: The thing he is asking you
36
1
about and the thing you are responding about is
2
exclusively the bonds in the first email he writes to
3
you and the first email response you give to him?
4
we in agreement on that?
Are
5
A
I agree.
6
Q
I just want to understand that, in his final reply to
7
your response, is it your evidence that you think he
8
suddenly is talking about not only bonds but bonds and
9
shares in Lone Pine?
10
A
I believe, because he is using the term "in the name",
11
he's referring collectively to all securities under
12
Lone Pine Resources Inc.
13
Q
But there are no words in this entire dialogue
14
consisting of three email exchanges between you and him
15
that raises the topic of shares in Lone Pine?
16
A
Not specifically, but ...
17
Q
Okay.
I want to move on to paragraph 7 and 8 of your
18
affidavit and Exhibits 6 and 7 that you refer to and
19
attach.
Maybe you could just read to yourself --
20
A
Sure.
21
Q
-- paragraphs 7 and 8, Exhibits 6 and 7.
22
A
Okay.
23
Q
Based on either your experience at Lone Pine or your
24
previous -- your pre-Lone Pine experience -- and I
25
can't recall whether you've told me about your pre-Lone
26
Pine experience at the beginning of this document.
27
think you did.
I
37
1
A
I did.
2
Q
Based on the collectivity of your experience, once you
3
graduated with your degree, are you familiar with hedge
4
funds?
5
A
Yes.
6
Q
And are you familiar with the fact that hedge funds
7
raise money, and it creates a pulled investment fund,
8
and with that, they make investments?
9
A
I do.
10
Q
And would you agree with me that, if a hedge fund
11
raised $29,150,000 from investors, the expectation and,
12
in fact, the requirement would be that those funds be
13
invested in some designated investments, correct?
14
A
I would believe that would be the case.
15
Q
So if a hedge fund, such as Bastogne, reported that it
16
raised $29,150,000, it wouldn't be saying that it had
17
$29,150,000 free to use as a litigation war chest?
18
Based on your industry knowledge, is that a fair
19
statement?
20
MR. SIMARD:
I think you can rephrase that
21
question, Ms. Grossman.
The part that I object to or
22
would ask you to rephrase is you said something like
23
Bastogne wouldn't be saying.
24
what Bastogne wouldn't be saying, but if you can
25
rephrase --
26
MS. GROSSMAN:
I'll rephrase.
27
MR. SIMARD:
-- happy to have him answer.
He can't speculate about
38
1
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
If a hedge fund such as
2
Bastogne filed documentation indicating it had raised
3
$29,150,000 from investors, you wouldn't understand
4
from that that it had $29,150,000 free to use as a
5
litigation war chest as it sees fit on prior
6
investments, would you?
7
A
I'd have to look at the -- the documents under which
8
they raised the money, but I would suspect that, if a
9
fund such as that raised money, it would be for a
10
multitude of purposes, including debt and equity
11
investments, as well as G&A expenses to run the fund.
12
Q
So I think we're in agreement that you -- you would
13
expect that there would be some restrictions on what
14
the hedge fund could do with the $29,150,000 based on
15
the contract between the hedge fund and the investors
16
who put up that money?
17
A
18
19
I would want to see the documentation upon which they
raised the money under.
Q
Right.
And that's because, based on your knowledge of
20
the industry, you would expect that there would be
21
restrictions on the hedge fund that had been put on the
22
hedge fund by the investors in the hedge fund who put
23
up the money, correct?
24
works, doesn't it?
25
A
26
27
That's the way the industry
I think you're asking me that.
I'm not sure.
I don't
work in the business of raising private equity money.
Q
Have you ever worked at a hedge fund?
39
1
A
No, I have not.
2
Q
So are you at all familiar with the practices of hedge
3
funds?
4
A
Generally, not specifically.
5
Q
Okay.
6
A
On some of the minutiae of how they raise money and
7
what all the terms and conditions of their capital
8
pools are.
9
Q
And the question that I asked you then -- and the
10
reason that you can't answer is because of your lack of
11
familiarity with how hedge funds operate?
12
A
I would say, with respect to specific elements as to
13
fund restrictions under certain funds that they raise
14
money under, I would reserve the right to read the fund
15
documentation that facilitated that capital rights.
16
Q
But as a matter of industry practice --
17
A
Generally speaking, I understand how the industry
18
19
works.
Q
And is it within your general understanding of how the
20
industry works that, when a hedge fund raises money
21
from its investors, it is contractually restricted in
22
what it can do with the money?
23
A
No.
24
Q
That's not your understanding?
25
A
No, it's not.
26
MS. GROSSMAN:
27
moment.
Let's go off the record for a
40
1
2
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Mr. Abel, are you aware that
3
typical hedge fund documentation prohibits investments
4
in any single investment to be more than 5 or 10
5
percent of the total fund assets?
6
A
Sometimes that's the case, yes.
7
Q
And are you aware that those limits typically dictate
8
the legal spend that is permissible in respect of any
9
investment?
10
A
11
12
I didn't -- or I don't know that.
I don't know what
the amount is.
Q
I'm not asking you about an amount.
I've just asked
13
you whether those limits are applicable and typically
14
dictate the legal spend in respect of any single
15
investment?
16
A
You're asking me if there are limits?
Or --
17
Q
No.
18
A
-- what the limits?
19
Q
I think we've agreed -- we've agreed in the previous
20
question that the typical fund documentation prohibits
21
investments in any single investment to be more than 5
22
or 10 percent of the total fund assets.
23
agreement on that?
24
A
Yes.
25
Q
And I have asked you:
We reached
Are you aware that those limits,
26
the 5 to 10 percent that are typical, typically
27
dictate, as well, the legal spend in any investment?
41
1
A
I was not aware of that.
2
Q
But I think you would agree with me that the pooled
3
investment funds sold by a hedge fund doesn't represent
4
the amount of money that the hedge fund has available
5
to use for litigation purposes?
6
$29,150,000, and you can't infer from that that it has
7
$29,150,000 available to litigate with, correct?
You can't just raise
8
A
I would agree with that statement.
9
Q
And I want to take you to Exhibit 11 to your affidavit,
10
which is a screenshot of something that your counsel
11
obtained from Bloomberg.
12
A
Yeah.
I'm familiar with that layout.
13
Q
There are actually ten -- ten screenshots --
14
A
M-hm.
15
Q
-- showing certain shareholder information with respect
16
to Lone Pine Resources Inc., and we -- I just want to
17
understand the -- the information that we're -- we're
18
getting from this.
19
names that appear on these ten screenshots, this list
20
doesn't represent all of the beneficial holders of the
21
current shares of Lone Pine Resources Inc., correct?
22
A
23
24
You would agree with me that the
These ten pages do not represent all of the beneficial
holders of Lone Pine, correct.
Q
And you'd agree with me that many of the names that do
25
appear here are the street names of institutions that
26
hold the shares for the benefit of individuals or
27
pension funds or other beneficial owners?
42
1
A
I would disagree with that statement.
2
Q
You disagree with that.
Because I see names on here --
3
I'll count pages in for you because it's not numbered,
4
but --
5
MR. SIMARD:
6
numbered on the left-hand side, Ms. Grossman, so you
7
can see it's sequential numbering.
8
MS. GROSSMAN:
9
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Actually, the holders are
Thank you.
If you look at number 87,
10
Raymond James & Associates, isn't that a stock
11
brokerage firm?
12
A
It is.
But my understanding of this compilation is
13
that that would represent shares held under one of the
14
Raymond James managed funds.
15
would not be applicable to that -- to that entry.
16
Q
The term "street name"
So hypothetically then, if somebody has --
17
MR. SIMARD:
18
Please try to ground the question in fact.
19
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Well, not hypothetically.
For example -- for example,
20
the 17 shareholders that have brought this application,
21
if they hold their shares in a brokerage account with a
22
stockbroker, it's your understanding that the stock
23
brokerage firm whose street name their shares are in
24
doesn't appear anywhere on Exhibit 11?
25
A
That's correct.
If you hold securities under a street
26
name in a brokerage account, it would not show up in
27
this list under the voluntary disclosure.
43
1
Q
So the voluntary disclose that you're referring to,
2
which is Exhibit 11 to your affidavit, is in no way a
3
complete list of shareholders?
4
A
No.
This is -- this is not a complete list of
5
shareholders, and it's my understanding that anyone
6
that refers to a list like this in any company would
7
not rely on it to be a full and accurate list of
8
shareholders of the company.
9
Q
And is it fair to say then that every person or entity
10
who holds their shares in Lone Pine through a stock
11
brokerage firm or an account at a stock brokerage firm
12
is missing from Exhibit 11?
13
A
That's -- yes.
14
Q
That is correct?
15
A
Yeah.
My understanding is that this is an
16
institutional list, which would not include retail
17
investors who hold their stocks, even if they are held
18
with those respective institutions, and the only
19
individuals that show up on here are company insiders,
20
and they show up on here because they have public
21
filings disclosed through form 4s.
22
MS. GROSSMAN:
23
moment.
24
(DISCUSSION OFF THE RECORD)
25
Q
MS. GROSSMAN:
Let's go off the record for a
Okay.
Well, subject to the
26
numerous objections and all questions reasonably
27
arising out of the answers to those questions, should
44
1
they be compelled, those are my questions on this
2
cross-examination.
3
MR. SIMARD:
4
(WHICH WAS ALL THE EVIDENCE TAKEN AT 4:36 PM)
5
_______________________________________________________
6
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIPT:
Thank you.
7
8
I, Toni Rizzoli, certify that the foregoing pages
9
are a complete and accurate transcript of the
10
proceedings, taken down by me in shorthand and
11
transcribed from my shorthand notes to the best of my
12
skill and ability.
13
14
Dated at the City of Calgary, Province of Alberta,
this 7th day of November, 2013.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
________________________________
Toni Rizzoli, CSR(A)
Official Court Reporter
45
1
EXHIBITS ENTERED IN THE QUESTIONING OF
2
SHANE KRISTOPHER ABEL
3
NOVEMBER 7, 2013
4
5
PAGE NUMBER:
6
7
EXHIBIT A FOR IDENTIFICATION - Email
8
exchange between Shane Abel and Adam
9
Marquardt (Subject to protest)
7
10
11
EXHIBIT B FOR IDENTIFICATION - Lone Pine
12
Resources Inc. Q2 2013 results earnings
13
call transcript dated August 9, 2013, at
14
12 PM eastern time (Subject to protest)
12
15
16
EXHIBIT C FOR IDENTIFICATION - 10-K filed
17
by Lone Pine Resources for the fiscal
18
yearend December 31, 2012, dated March 14,
19
2013 (Subject to protest)
21
20
21
EXHIBIT D FOR IDENTIFICATION - News
22
release put out by Lone Pine dated May 6,
23
2013 (Subject to protest)
26
24
25
EXHIBIT E FOR IDENTIFICATION - Article in
26
the Northern Journal dated May 13, 2013
27
(Subject to protest)
28
46
1
OBJECTIONS
2
3
PAGE NUMBER:
4
5
(OBJECTION)
9
6
(OBJECTION)
10
7
(OBJECTION)
10
8
(OBJECTION)
10
9
(OBJECTION)
10
10
(OBJECTION)
11
11
(OBJECTION)
11
12
(OBJECTION)
11
13
(OBJECTION)
13
14
(OBJECTION)
13
15
(OBJECTION)
14
16
(OBJECTION)
14
17
(OBJECTION)
15
18
(OBJECTION)
16
19
(OBJECTION)
16
20
(OBJECTION)
16
21
(OBJECTION)
17
22
(OBJECTION)
17
23
(OBJECTION)
21
24
(OBJECTION)
22
25
(OBJECTION)
22
26
(OBJECTION)
22
27
(OBJECTION)
23
47
1
(OBJECTION)
24
2
(OBJECTION)
24
3
(OBJECTION)
24
4
(OBJECTION)
25
5
(OBJECTION)
25
6
(OBJECTION)
26
7
(OBJECTION)
26
8
(OBJECTION)
26
9
(OBJECTION)
27
10
(OBJECTION)
28
11
(OBJECTION)
28
12
(OBJECTION)
29
13
(OBJECTION)
29
14
(OBJECTION)
29
15
(OBJECTION)
30
16
(OBJECTION)
30
17
(OBJECTION)
30
18
(OBJECTION)
31
19
(OBJECTION)
31
20
(OBJECTION)
31
21
22
23
24
25
26
27