As I mentioned in a previous post it does look to me as though...

As I mentioned in a previous post it does look to me as though the consideration was $10 mill / % of interest. So maybe that is one part of the PE dispute.

As for the interposed entity trick. Perhaps not so. Setting up a subsidiary / SPV vehicle in an overseas jurisdiction is a practical commercial thing to do for a large company like COP. However it may have had the unintended consequences of rendering the PE rights to nothing. Perhaps something the JV partners did not foresee but should have.

The bastard in all this (and I see 321 has posted above but I have not read as yet) could be WPL exploiting this situation and opposing the notice of PE. They would have a say in this if it affects their commercial interests IMO. If this is the situation then one would hope it comes down to the original intention of the JV partners and not the technical interpretation.

If there is any light left for anything you would hope that serious players in this situation got there contracts right and did not make such a ridiculous error and we are all barking up the wrong tree.

All speculation, IMO DYOR etc