Monday, March 29, 2010

"InterOil Responds to Allegations" (IOC)

UPDATE: "Morgan Stanley on InterOil: "Mischaracterization of the Investment Debate: Stock Set to Outperform in April" (IOC)"
Original post:
After that brief interlude it's back to IOC!
The stock is up 63 cents at $62.64. It looks 'heavy', I wouldn't be surprised if it closed down today.
From the press release (you'll note they don't use Business Wire; a Berkshire Hathaway company):
InterOil Corporation (NYSE: IOC) (POMSoX: IOC) believes that allegations made in an article concerning certain litigation which has been ongoing in Texas since 2005, have been raised now in an attempt to divert attention from the successful operations of the company. Operations conducted by the company which were evaluated by independent engineering evaluations consultants, GLJ Petroleum Consultants Ltd., resulted in an increase in our gross best case contingent resources estimate by 889 million barrels of oil equivalent resources, to a revised total of 8.2 tcf of natural gas and 156 million barrels of condensate, in the past fiscal year. The article was timed to benefit recent short selling activities. The "short" interest in InterOil increased to 3,548,056 shares in mid-March.

InterOil's policy is to not provide commentary on ongoing litigation beyond the description of it appropriately and consistently set forth in our Annual Information Statement and Form 40-F available on our website or from the SEC. In our Annual Information Form (AIF), filed on March 1, 2010 the Company continued to disclose that Company's Chief Executive Officer, Phil Mulacek, and his controlled entities Petroleum Independent & Exploration Corporation and P.I.E. Group, LLC, together with the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in Todd Peters, et. al. v. Phil Mulacek et. al.; Cause No. 05-040-03592-CV; pending in the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas (see page 43). Appropriate details concerning this long running action are provided.

InterOil and its subsidiaries were not party to, nor otherwise involved in, the Nikiski Partners filing referenced in the article....