Market Overview

Cation Capital Sends Letter to Crescent Point Shareholders

Share:

Expresses Concern with Lack of Progress and Issues Related to
Governance and Leadership

Remains Committed to Unlocking Shareholder Value

Cation Capital Inc. (together with its affiliates and associates,
"Cation Capital" or "Cation"), a private investment firm and shareholder
of Crescent Point Energy Corp (NYSE:CPG) ("Crescent Point"), today
sent a letter to fellow shareholders of Crescent Point outlining its
concerns with the current state of governance, strategy and operations
of the Company.

Full text of the letter follows:

July 25, 2018

Dear Fellow Shareholders,

As you know, Cation Capital Inc., together with its affiliates and
associates (collectively "Cation") is a significant shareholder of
Crescent Point Energy Corp. ("Crescent Point" or the "Company") and
recently increased its ownership position in the Company. We write to
you today to express our acute concerns with the ongoing governance and
operations of Crescent Point, the lack of transparency regarding its
process to find the most qualified CEO and the board's stall tactics to
delay meeting with Cation until it has made irreversible decisions,
thereby rendering shareholder input extraneous.

For background, Cation formally reached out to the Chairman of Crescent
Point, Peter Bannister, on July 16, 2018, requesting that the Chair make
himself available for an in-person meeting prior to the July 25, 2018,
board of directors meeting to discuss potential strategies for improving
the Company and its share price, including, among other things,
appropriate board composition, CEO replacement, strategic alternatives
and communicating plans in respect of the foregoing to the market. After
market on July 18, 2018, Cation received a response from the Chair
seeking to defer the proposed meeting until after the upcoming board
meeting.

In an effort to remain constructive and collaborative, Cation suggested
it would accept the Chair's requested timing on the reasonable
conditions that no material decisions regarding the CEO position or
other staffing and strategy decisions be made at the upcoming board
meeting; and that the Chair propose firm times (that are mutually
agreeable) to meet with Cation to discuss the matters highlighted in
Cation's previous correspondence. Cation has not received a response to
that communication and has, as a result, determined to update all
shareholders, the rightful owners of Crescent Point.

It is imperative that fellow shareholders remember Crescent Point's main
thesis in rebuking Cation's attempt to enhance Crescent Point's board
composition. At the time, the current board, led by Chairman Peter
Bannister, stated that it had the right plan and that the current board
was therefore best suited to lead the Company. It has been over three
months since the board started selling this story and today, more than
ever, it is evident that Crescent Point never had a "plan", let alone
even a basic strategy for dealing with CEO succession. For written
evidence of this shareholders can look to the Company's June 19, 2018,
press release where it briefly discusses a "revised business strategy"
and indicates "Crescent Point's revised strategy will be communicated
subsequent to a formal portfolio review, which is currently underway".
For those who have been watching closely, it should come as no surprise
that the "revised business strategy" borrows heavily from Cation's 12-18
month proposal for unlocking value at Crescent Point.

If the board had a plan, why is a "revised business strategy" needed?
Why isn't the board implementing the plan that it campaigned on to be
re-elected? Why does the Chairman of Crescent Point, who has held his
position since 2004, after all this time require "a formal portfolio
review"? How does he and the board not know the assets of the Company
and how best it should move forward to unlock the billions of unrealized
value? These are all questions we would have preferred to ask privately
but were denied the opportunity.

While we were cautiously optimistic at first about the much-needed
management changes that were initiated in the aftermath of our campaign
and the annual general meeting on May 4, 2018, (and evidently in
response to the numerous failings we had identified), further progress
at the Company has stalled and its share price continues to languish. In
fact, Crescent Point's share price is now lower than it was in the
immediate wake of the AGM and materially below the weighted average
share price during the proxy battle, which provided shareholders hope
for maximizing value. The Company has since reverted back to the
pre-proxy contest era, as its share price frequently underperforms its
peers, commodity prices and indices. The market is speaking loud and
clear and the board needs to listen – the existing changes are
insufficient half-measures; significantly more is required.

What has obviously gone unaddressed is the abject failure of the board
to reconstitute itself with individuals with the experience and vision
needed to realize on the immense value of the Company's assets. Despite
the shockingly low level of support expressed by shareholders at the AGM
for incumbent directors Bannister, Amirault, Jackson and Romanzin, and
the Company's subsequent and repeated private promises to various large
shareholders that change is coming, nothing has been done to address
what is clearly an inept board. It is apparent the board is trying to
absolve itself from responsibility for the value erosion at Crescent
Point by hiding behind the terminations of Mr. Saxberg, Mr. Smith and
Mrs. MacDonald. It wasn't that long ago the board's compensation
committee raised compensation for named executive officers by ~17%.
Somehow, on the back of this, the board justifies these terminations and
subsequent severance packages. How is this reconciled? Who is
accountable for such actions?

Very early in our communications, Crescent Point went to great lengths
to discuss the character and actions required of individuals who sit on
boards of TSX 60 companies. By its own criteria, we would like to
understand the board's actions and process for replacing Mr. Saxberg. It
was announced that Mr. Bryksa was appointed as interim President, CEO
and director, but since that time, there has been minimal information
available about the process being adopted to find the best available
candidate to fill this very important role. Not often, if ever, does a
TSX 60 issuer appoint an interim President & CEO without engaging a
professional search firm to embark on a fulsome process to permanently
fill the role. In fact, two peers that Crescent Point's compensation
committee prides itself on using, Cenovus Energy Inc. and Encana
Corporation, both replaced their CEOs successfully with external
candidates identified through a very public process.

Our understanding is that the same search firm used for those searches
has been retained by the Company with an undisclosed scope of services.
Surely if given the same mandate the search firm would produce similar
results as their track record suggests nothing less. If the board has
not provided the same scope of services as its peers, to find the best
qualified CEO, then shareholders deserve to understand why this is not
occurring. Further, the Company's "revised business strategy is
reprioritizing key value drivers including continuing improvement of the
balance sheet, disciplined capital allocation and cost reductions".
Clearly if Crescent Point's plan has changed and reprioritizing is
required, is it fair to assume that the skillset required for the
reprioritized value drivers does NOT exist within the Company and that
an external CEO candidate that has demonstrated success with these value
drivers is needed to lead the Company through the transition? Does the
board really believe the culture under its previous regime will yield a
candidate with demonstrated expertise superior to all external
candidates?

As for a succession plan we have searched Crescent Point's public
documents and cannot find any disclosure about specific succession
planning, including any mention of Mr. Bryksa being Mr. Saxberg's
successor. The fact the board originally labelled Mr. Bryksa as
"interim" indicates either that there was no succession plan or that Mr.
Bryksa does not have the full confidence of the board, yet oddly for an
interim leader, he was also appointed to the board, which could be a
deterrent to having the best qualified CEO candidates surface. To be
clear, we are concerned that the Company has disclosed so few details of
the apparent CEO search, that interim CEO Bryksa was mentored for the
last twelve years by the just-terminated CEO and that the board is not
taking full advantage of the opportunity to find a replacement that will
be fully endorsed by the market. Given the current valuation of Crescent
Point it appears the interim President & CEO has not inspired the
confidence of shareholders. All shareholders have paid dearly in terms
of share price erosion and the hefty severance packages paid to recently
terminated executives. It is imperative the board gets this right the
first time.

With the second quarter results upon us we also want to ensure
shareholders separate what happened as part of the previous management
regime versus what Crescent Point has done under the "revised business
strategy".

Previous management:

(i) secured two asset sales totaling $280 million in the Williston Basin
which will reduce debt at quarter's end; and

(ii) planned a less capital intensive second quarter due to spring break
up (which occurs historically year over year) which should result in
free cash flow and the further reduction of debt.

The "revised business strategy" led by Chairman Peter Bannister has
played no role in these debt reduction initiatives. The Chairman and his
appointees can, however, take credit for the following:

(i) terminating the President & CEO, thereby exposing the lack of a
succession plan and providing little transparency about the scope of the
CEO search;

(ii) shortly after being re-elected, the board is now changing the plan
that was campaigned on to a "revised business strategy" that contains
little to no details;

(iii) after a 14 year tenure as Chairman, Mr. Bannister is implementing
a formal portfolio review;

(iv) terminating the employment of the Chief Operating Officer, Neil
Smith and Senior Vice President, Corporate and Business Development,
Tamara Macdonald and without announcement in the June 19, 2018, press
release promoting Mark Eade to Senior Vice President, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary and Brad Borgarrd to Senior Vice President,
Corporate Planning and Investor Relations (interesting promotions given
both individuals were instrumental with the previous regime, are long
dated and responsible for corporate planning and communicating with
shareholders);

(v) eliminating all diversity amongst the senior management team which
is now all white men;

(vi) producing new 2018 guidance that reduces exit production estimates
by more than the amount of assets disposed with NO reduction in capital
expenditures;

(vii) neglecting to provide any timeline on when the details of the
"revised business strategy" will be disclosed;

(viii) ignoring shareholder concerns regarding executive compensation
and not adopting a plan more aligned with full cycle economics and
corporate and shareholder returns; and most importantly,

(ix) abjectly failing in reconstituting the board with individuals with
the experience and vision needed to realize on the immense value of the
Company's assets.

We sincerely hope the board provides full and complete disclosure of the
full economic value of the severance and vesting packages that
terminated executives received or have been offered. On an accrual
basis, the amount expensed for termination costs may be less than
actually received and the perception could be the board negotiated lower
severances than what were owed. If in fact the board took a firm stand
and negotiated lower severances shareholders should properly acknowledge
its efforts and Cation would be the first to do so.

We are long-term investors determined to unlock the stranded value
within Crescent Point and have expressed to many of you our commitment
to stay engaged and hold our board accountable. In short, we are not
going anywhere. Our preference is and always has been to engage with the
board collaboratively, however, the board has not appreciated nor
embraced this approach. We have many constructive suggestions that our
board could benefit from prior to locking into a "revised business
strategy", the details of which are unknown, perhaps even to this board.
We in particular would like to share with the board our insights on
potential CEO and board candidates that have national and multinational
experience with energy majors that have written the book on the capital
allocation and total return on capital employed processes, appropriate
board composition, strategic alternatives and timing of communicating
plans in respect of the foregoing to the market. We hope to eventually
engage in a productive discussion with our board to assist it in
ensuring it unlocks the significant value it portrayed in the Company's
2017 year-end disclosure.

Yours truly,

/s/

Sandy L. Edmonstone

President

Cation Capital Inc.

About Cation Capital Inc.

Cation Capital Inc., together with its affiliates and associates, is a
private investment firm headquartered in Alberta, Canada. Cation invests
in situations where it is able to influence operational, financial and
strategic direction. Cation seeks value in companies that are
experiencing financial or operational challenges, are in out of favour
sectors or are otherwise in need of change to drive significant
long-term value for stakeholders.

View Comments and Join the Discussion!