9. Questions for BNY

1. BNY has represented that the pro forma disclosures in the IPO prospectus were consistent with ARO being deductible from distributions to the Trust. Why then do pages 11 and F-10 of the final IPO prospectus show pro forma 2011 distributions unburdened by any ARO deduction?

2. If the disclosures in the IPO prospectus were incorrect, what claims does the Trust have under Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the 1933 Securities Act?

3. The Trust Agreement obligates BNY to provide Unitholders with audited financials within 120 days of year end. Six years have elapsed with no audit. At what point does the Trust have a claim for nonperformance? 

4. BNY quotes subclause (n) of Developed Properties Gross Deductions to justify the deduction from Trust distributions of ARO relating to injection wells that have been defunct since before the Conveyance. How does BNY reconcile this stance with the fact that subclause (n)'s principle clause specifically disallows such deductions?

5. How much has BNY charged the Trust to date for all actions related to the Special Meeting, to the delayed audit, to the several whistleblowers, to the California and Delaware actions, to the various arbitral actions, and to any other work or consulting related to the PCEC accounting disputes?

6. How much has the Trust reimbursed to PCEC to date for such actions?

7. On what basis did BNY conclude that deductions for ARO need not be prorated by the proportion of production that occurred after the Conveyance?

8. Where is the approximately $50M that has been withheld from Unitholders to date for disputed ARO? Is it in escrow?

9. What allegations were in the Scott Wood deposition that Unitholders have not been made aware of?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​