Takeover & Legal Battle (TPLF) to control Kurdistan Resources

========= FWIW... Before I say anything, I want to re-iterate that I am NO expert on vexatious litigation per se... so please accept my post as the work of an enquiring amateur OK...here goes... FWIW...back in March of this year, I posted the below note... it was headed 'PAINFUL SHOES' I continue to wonder if THIS is where this whole issue is heading? The more so as I really do detect that Todd is rightfully furious with both the litigants and other 'aspects' of this matter BTW...I did email one chap (who posts on here from time to time) quite some months ago to advise him that the 'servers would be next' I still think they WILL be BTW...thanks for the coffees to those fellow shareholders I now know by sight but whose names I did not catch during my Court attendances my turn next of course Some might recall that I recently mentioned here that I emailed another poster much earlier this year to the effect that 'servers will be next' that deliberately bland statement was not picked up by that recipient... and I am not sure that the point was really understood by the person concerned... unsurprising perhaps and no adverse reflection upon him Anyway... = Firstly...may I please offer my own grateful thanks to all those today who both attended Court and provided good analysis a quite terrific job Secondly.... I am no expert regarding vexatious litigation... so may I merely please pose the following question to those here who might be better qualified to comment... In the event of this litigation proceeding to trial... and in the event of EXC losing... I am well aware that the Court may 'look through' Excalibur to those providing financial support to Excalibur to facilitate the prosecution of such action... and as far as I recall, any such 'backers' would be jointly and severally liable for all the COSTS...should such costs not be paid by Excalibur... IE every such backer would be on the hook for ALL such costs? OK...all pretty clear so far...and that is bad enough perhaps for those who 'support' the Excalibur legal actions BUT...please consider this... What IF the legal actions were viewed by the Court to be VEXATIOUS ... my own amateur assessment tells me that Excalibur might now be entering such area as the cases are currently STILL proceeding ( I make no comment relating to the future ...or otherwise... of such cases) Were the Court to hold that the actions WERE vexatious, I rather think that both GKP and Texas could seek amounts in damages that were... shall we say... 'quite a bit' greater than the 'mere' covering of costs in the case of GKP, might it be shown that the loss to GKP was very considerable indeed (placing prices-lost opportunity etc)?? such that any claim would DWARF the costs now under discussion... and that claim -award would again land squarely in the lap of those providing 'support' to Excalibur Imagaine yourself for one second....as a potential backer of EXC... would you wish to run the risk of being hit by not only escalating costs-payment as security for costs in 21 days.... but ALSO by the potential UNLIMITED liability of a future decision by the Court regarding vexatious litigation I tried to place myself for a few minutes in the shoes of such CURRENT and potential backers....... I could not wait to remove them...painful that they were Regards = I just want to re-iterate that, in my opinion, nothing has changed that view... ie ...in my opinion...they 'WILL' be next when we talk loosely about servers ... we should perhaps consider the powerful RADIATION effect IE one server will RADIATE out to others... and of course that often leads to 'surprising' places... and the audit trails are inescapable... including, as they will , many intermediating servers HOWEVER... in my submission ... it will be wise NOT to speculate on a public blog as to WHO or WHAT might be picked up via such radiation.... but please just be content with the thought that such powerful effect could work to our mutual advantage... and the great disadvantage of others Good luck to all genuine investors here Regards GRH1 ========= Ladies and Gentlemen The note from the court case that the Excalibur team is looking at this and other bulletin boards should stop us dead in our tracks! The endless commentary that is being generated on this board, some from people who have considerably more legal background than I can muster is impressive. HOWEVER are we actually doing ourselves harm by posting such views? This board has a wealth of experience and expertise. GKP has got to be one of the best-researched shares ever to come to market. Given that many of us, myself included, have my life savings tide up in this share why would I want to post ANYTHING that could remotely aid the Excalibur side. From the last report from the court it seem s that Excalibur’s lawyers think that it is worthwhile monitoring our comments here. Many I humbly suggest that we make sure that nothing posted here or elsewhere can in any way help their deliberations or give them a steer or suggest a line of enquiry that may be fruitful to their cause. I personally feel that it is incumbent on all of us who are invested in this share to support our company and not give one iota of aid to the opposition. I will therefore not be taking part in any on board conversation that could conceivably help Rex and his pals Kind regards Dalesmann ======= ===== Hi Mandelsputin, Only just noticed your response to my nocturnal post on yesterday's proceedings. Thanks for the appreciation and in return here are my detailed notes relating to the tax evasion issue: JG started by stating that he wanted to explore the tax treatment by the US Government of any buy out of Excal's interest. He referred to an e-mail from EW to RW in December 2007, in which Eric advised that ''If and when you agree a deal you must make sure that the document states that they are buying your share in the Agreement and not the Shaikan field.'' He pointed out that CGT tax in the USA was much more favourable where an interest had existed for more than one year and clearly any direct interest in Shaikan would be short lived. Rex was extremely evasive under cross examination of the issue so JG went on to refer to another e-mail containing a draft letter for Rex to send to David Williams of Cadwalladers, who were his lawyers at the time. This to the effect that: ''It looks like we need two letters, one for settlement and one for origination. The 'settlement' letter must make it clear that you have held an interest for more than one year, with no mention of a Shaikan sale. However the 'origination' letter should acknowledge the closing of an agreement to buy out Excalibur's interest in Shaikan.'' JG then stated that ''In other words you wanted to establish your interest in Shaikan for the purpose of selling it, but wanted to diddle the IRS?'' Rex said he did not want to comment as it was a matter for tax lawyers. JG then indicated that Eric came back with an improved draft and stated to Rex that '' You clearly worked hand in glove with your brother on this scam.'' Rex responded that he thought it was all above board and legal. JG then referred to EW's revised draft including the words ''sale of the Shaikan partnership, which I currently have no interest in'' and a 'memo to self' from EW: ''Draft submission to US tax authorities: 'Excalibur sold all its contractual rights to Gulf Keystone and never owned a share in the Shaikan block'. '' Another e-mail from EW stated that Rex needed two documents, one for legal purposes, another for tax, and included a draft letter to the effect that ''Gulf Keystone acknowledges that it has purchased all contractual rights in the Shaikan block''. JG said that it was very clear that the tax authorities were to be sold a different story, so there was a clear intention to defraud and put Rex through the hoop under cross examination of this issue. All Rex could really say was ''Sounds like I need to refer to tax counsel '' So there you have it. They must be very worried men now IMHO. Painful shoes or what? Now I know that at least one of our court attendees has had enough of posting on here, owing to the attitude of some on this board, but I hope that at least some of those attending today will be able to keep us informed of the latest development and that others will be encouraged to go along and do their bit for the cause. GLA, Tot- the old trout ======= Nest of Rampers Networker 1 Nov'12 - 20:52 - 235626 of 235628 Excal v GKP Court 15 My visit pm Thurs 1 Nov 2012 RW being cross examined by Jonathan Gaisman QC for GKP [P248] ‘Incorrect statement’ June 2006 Meeting RW-TK-Hawrami lasted 1.5 hours. RW says TK witness statement omits reference to Gulf involvement A Mr Bill Guest involved. Falcon – an oil company in Texas with connections to Kozel family [H10-P2711] RW made unfavourable impression on Hawrami – both TK and Adnan Samarrai remember him being put down by Hawrami. [D1-239] RW and TK give differing evidence Energy-Infrastructure-Power Plants – Mr Franchie, acting CFO, not optimistic about fundraising – RW was optimistic. Franchie said credibility was a must. [2743] A Mr Luffler and a Mr Van Ost were investment bankers to whom RW was pitching Nov-Dec 2007 Franchie introduced RW to Lazards [H10-2772] Franchie’s workings – limited in scope [D1154] Hawrami and TK met in Henley. RW witness statement ‘Entirely true’. JG – Gulf booked accommodation and flights for RW. Invoiced RW but didn’t get paid or re-imbursed. June-Aug 2006 RW insisted he attended a meeting for 1.5 hours. JG says he wasn’t at meeting. RW insists again that he was. [P12164??] Email dated 14 Oct 2012 from Hawrami to Michael Howard stating that Excal-RW not welcome at forthcoming Kurdistan Business Trade Delegation meeting because of past problems with Excal and RW in 2006. JG quoting, I believe, from Email “ Excal serious non-transparent practices”. Break 3.20-3.27pm JG Aug 2006 onwards. Financing the signature bonus alone? Nobody likely to do so – RW ‘depends on equity structure and titleholder’ Summer 2006. Dan Checkworth and Cameron Smith among others were bankers approached by RW. [H11-P3045] JG ‘Packet’ to Barzani from USA lobbyists employed by Excal-RW. ‘Above board’ says RW. RW email to a Mr Nabile?? from Goldman Sachs ( whom RW had met at World Economic Forum in Jordan) seeking analyst role specialising in infrastructure. [3089] 24 Aug 2006. Letter to Hawrami from TK. Session finished 4pm May or may not commence again Mon 5 Nov. Judge will inform probably later today or tomorrow. ============ Hi Manu19 Just so we are on the same page it is this post that I am referring to... http://www.iii.co.uk/investment/detail/?display=discussion&code=cotn%3AGKP.L&threshold=50&it=le&action=detail&id=10148120 The reason I regard it as so important is firstly because it is a verbatim account (we don't have many of these) as to how step by step, our QC, Jonathan Gaisman, literally took apart Rex's evidence and unveiled that he had a series of emails that INCRIMINATED both him and his brother, the Excalibur co-directors. When I witnessed the proceedings yesterday, it was also the only point when Rex looked truly beaten, having no alternative but to say he would need the advice of tax Counsel (i.e Eric)... who was the other party to the fraudulent activity. Good luck with that one. I couldn't see this as being an easy one for Eric (a tax attorney) to defend! One of the most apparent aspects of this case also seems to me to be the need for Rex and Eric to demonstrate the 'genuine' nature of their claim, and that they are honest people who have simply been unfairly cut out of their entitlement - clean hands, if you will. So, much of yesterday was about an attempt by JG to tarnish Rex's image. While most people present would have felt that Rex did poorly, overstating his capabilities, offering farcical answers to many difficult questions, and showing an extraordinary lack of business acumen, it MIGHT have been argued that he was simply not the brightest spark. But evidence of extreme dishonesty (intent to defraud the IRS) would surely destroy any remaining credibility. The onus is, after all, on Excalibur to prove their credentials in this case. I'm the first to admit that I am not qualified to say exactly how much damage this evidence would do. But, to me, the body language of Rex at the time suggested that he was shocked that the emails had been found, and the visible reaction of Eric was that he was extremely disturbed by what had been uncovered. My perception is therefore that this was a brutal blow to Excalibur.... and remember that I did see them sustain quite a few cuts and bruises throughout yesterday. Everyone is different, and our experts in contracts and legalese will no doubt see other aspects as more crucial. But it was the first time that I felt that this was something which could not be batted back and could very easily lead to Rex and Eric facing charges of their own. A possible turning point? It looked like one to me.... perhaps with no turning back! GLA, scaramouche ============= bobobob5 1 Nov'12 - 22:23 - 235631 of 235631 BT: I took 26 pages of notes today. I am not transcribing them all now lol Clearly the email from Dr. Hawrami was the real 'shocker' today. The GKP barrister very cleverly built up to it, and over quite a long period, getting Rex Wempen to make statements such as "I have a high opinion of Dr. Hawrami" and "I have no reason to doubt Dr. Hawrami's integrity" and mentioning the good things that Dr. Hawrami had done for Kurdistan. And the GKP barrister referred to a meeting which Rex Wempen attended (GKP was there) which Dr. Hawrami attended. He asked Rex if, during the formal part of the meeting, he had opened his mouth. "I don't recall opening my mouth" Then the GKP barrister said "But you claim that you had saved the day. What was said about the third member of the group: Excalibur? If you had spoken up, what would you have said?" Rex replied "I would have said that it was a privilege and honour to meet you Dr. Hawrami and look forward to doing business" Then the GKP barrister said that Dr. Hawrami had "been put down by Dr. Hawrami because you had put yourself forward previously with a whole list of projects on which you hadn't delivered?" And Rex responded "It was pleasant and cordial" It then moved forward with some exchanges about the financial demands of exploration costs etc. before the issue of when next Rex Wempen met Dr. Hawrami. The Judge had to intervene to get the facts out of Rex Wempen: "When was the next meeting?" Rex Wempen replied "April this year" The GKP barrister asked how that was, "At a meeting with the Kurdistan Business Council" The GKP barrister then said that this meeting with Dr. Hawrami was just "Greetings and smiles". He then delivered what some if not all of the shareholders present seemed to think was a body blow. "On 14 October 2012 Dr. Hawrami sent an email to a colleague in the KRG about the KRG and the Kurdistan Business Council. He was not happy that Excalibur was there. Excalibur had tried to get involved in opportunities using a seriously non-transparent process. Why would Dr. Hawrami say that?" Rex Wempen: "I can only conclude that these events have not..." (bob: sorry bloggers, it was moving so fast at that point I couldn't catch the next couple of words) The GKP barrister then said "So you are saying that Dr. Hawrami has issued a false statement?" Rex Wempen: "I have the highest respect for Dr. Hawrami and what (bob: I couldn't write fast enough, I think from memory that he said "he has done for Kurdistan"). "Maybe his memory is incomplete" (at this point I ran out of paper and had to grab two blank sheets from my neighbour!) GKP barrister: "Dr. Hawrami's statement (email) not dishonest" (precise words not in my notes) Rex Wempen: "Interpret it that he is not happy with things" The Judge then intervened with a question about this matter. Rex Wempen: "No idea milord" Judge: "It looks like you are saying that he has written the letter (email) to affect these proceedings?" Rex Wempen: "I have no idea" GKP barrister: "Whatever the Minister's motivation you accept that he is a truthful person..." (I couldn't catch the next bit from the Judge). ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The above is from my contemporaneous notes and is written in good faith. I cannot guarantee that it is wholly correct or accurate but I think it reasonably reflects discussion of this point. this is not legal advie I am not qualified to give it =================== Surabaja1 Yes, I thought that the Wempen bros were under the cosh, and RW was unable to fight his corner with any conviction, and was struggling to stay focussed. He responded to the cross examination with statements of lack of understanding. He often started a stock reply before Counsel asked him a question. Counsel told him multiple times that he was "going off on a tangent". Excal QC was rolling his eyes - literally. Two things stuck out in my observation. When admitting that Excal could not fund the PSC sig fee, he said that he thought he could have "an adult conversation with Todd about it" and that he expected GKP to provide an interest bearing carry for that, until he could stump up some private equity. That was pure wishful thinking IMO. The "conspiracy" to defraud the US tax authorities accusation by JG was as clear as dawn breaking after 2 emails were tabled, one from each brother to their lawyer about time line representations for capital gains, but he did not spot the obvious incoming. After the accusation, RW could only say he needed to consult his tax attorney I felt that the link to GKP was tenuous at best, whereas there may be a case to answer forTKI. But in either case the "No 1 headshave" bros are not convincing to watch. On a couple of occassions the court was struggling to supress laughter, but I went for the laugh anyway =========== Mandelsputin The question as to why Excal's litigation funders have not pulled the plug in the face of what appears, on the face of it, to be a very weak claim, has been troubling me for some time. Here are a few possible answers that I have come up with. All pure speculation on my part, I hasten to add, and full of "mights" and "could haves" and other such conditionalities! 1) The TPL(Third Party Litigation) Funders were not expecting a security for (TKI/GKP) costs order as "loser pays" does not apply in the US where arbitration was the preferred scenario. I suspect the intention might have been to force a pre-trial settlement as TKI-GKP could have been expected to settle so as to limit their costs.. Had the TPL Funders pulled out at the time Judge Gloster ordered security for costs, the case might have been seen as vexatious or abuse of process, brought solely with the intent of extracting a settlement from TKI-GKP, whatever the merits of the case, to save the costs of a full trial. TPL Funders might have felt obliged to continue to demonstrate their bona fides. Moreover, cessation of funding halfway through the case could have been an admission to TPLF investors of poor case selection which might have damaged the reputation of the TPL Funder vis a vis potential investors, and posssibly Excal's lawyers' reputation, too. "The market is still young and one or two bad cases could easily damage confidence." http://www.thelawyer.com/the-third-way/1011248.article So possibly a least worst option could have been to continue to trial and hope for something like this: "The issue of cessation of funding mid-way through litigation is also of concern. A principle of ’in for a penny, in for a pound’, SAVE WHERE DISHONESTY OR CONCEALMENT BY THE LITIGANT HAS LED TO A CHANGE OF PROSPECTS ................" (my caps). (Extracted from same link as provided above.) If a litigant, under cross examination, could be found to have concealed evidence that changed the prospects of a case, a TPL Funder would have good reason to withdraw funding, and without damaging their reputation or that of the lawyers. One other point worth mentioning again. Another poster drew this to our attention (sorry, cannot remember who) but I didn't fully take on board the implications. It concerns lawyer-client privilege. "In addition, at least one court has determined that attorney-client privilege doesn't apply to communications between third-party investors and attorneys. So if an investor asks an attorney for sensitive information about a case it is funding, that information could be subpoenaed by the opposing party and used against the plaintiff." ((subpoena: The process or writ issued by the court requiring the attendance of a witness at a certain time and place for testimony. It also may order him or her to bring books, records, or other relevant items as evidence. Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/subpoena#ixzz2BATwd3uR)) http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/07/why-are-hedge-funds-allowed-to-invest-in-litigation/259345/ Say, for the sake of argument, Grime Unnatural Resources were Excal's TPLFunders, and further allow that Grime requested sensitive info from Excal's lawyers when considering the merits of the case and whether or not to fund it, TKI/GKP could subpoena this information. Nice for GKP, not so nice for Excal. = Re: Saturday morning thoughts Cornelius Pug "When TPLF debases that system by putting investor profits ahead of justice, society is the loser." Hear hear. This indeed may be what the Judge is addressing. Reading the excellent court reports over the last couple of days I have wondered, along with many others, with this seeming lack of a solid case against GKP, why the judge has not thrown the case out of court. Or indeed why he has not severely rapped RW over the knuckles((One of the cylindrically projecting parts of a hinge through which the pin passes.)) with his evasive, inconclusive answers. Some have thought it could be to hear the case to ensure that the loser can't appeal. However it struck me that as Mandle pointed out third party litigation is a relatively young market, and this is potentially a huge test case financially. If the plaintiff wins, he wins 30% of GKP. That's one hell of a carrot, notwithstanding many views on here that the case is purely for manipulation of the sp. However if the plaintiff loses and costs are awarded against him, that could open up shareholder action - as Pitts suggested a few in the US were considering. If the backers were then open to this litigation, would this not become a real bench mark case against third party litigation? Its ramifications could continue for years if people such as JohnnyRoyale, who had to sell at depressed prices, form a class action suit against the backers. What I am saying in my long winded way is could the judge be intending this case to be a warning shot across the bows against third party litigation? Judge Clarke is a senior judge nearing the end of his career. He has nothing to lose to take this case to its logical conclusion and potentially strike a huge body blow against greedy third party litigation in this country. That would be quite an legacy. ======== Why Are Hedge Funds Allowed to Invest in Litigation? By Lisa Rickard 9Jul 3 2012, 1:42 PM ET29 A justice system can't really be impartial when there are business entities betting on it. Reuters When we think of our system of justice, we might envision the heroic small town lawyer, Atticus Finch, in To Kill a Mockingbird. Or the jury deliberations in 12 Angry Men. Or the countless other movies, TV series, and high school civics textbooks that depict the U.S. justice system as a uniquely virtuous pillar of American society. Unfortunately, that glorified image of the U.S. justice system is at odds with today's reality. In far too many instances, today's civil justice system is utilized not as a means for delivering justice but as a potential profit center -- in other words, less Atticus Finch and more Gordon Gekko, the rapacious investor in Oliver Stone's Wall Street. We see this play out in some class action lawsuits, where the class members receive token awards while their lawyers walk away with millions. It is also visible in the millions of dollars spent every year by the plaintiffs' bar on advertising, a practice once prohibited for lawyers. And this troubling trend could be accelerated by a new development: the spread of third-party litigation financing, or TPLF. Solving the nation's most entrenched problems See full coverage You probably haven't heard of TPLF. It's a fairly recent creation, originating in Australia and now landing on the shores of the U.S. In essence, TPLF is the practice of hedge funds and other investment firms providing funds to plaintiffs' lawyers in order to conduct litigation. If the case is won in court or settled, the investor is repaid out of the proceeds of the lawsuit, usually with an extremely high rate of return. The investors, therefore, have a direct stake in the outcome of the case. Proponents of TPLF say that providing this new funding stream increases access to the courts. But U.S. courts are already widely accessible. For instance, a plaintiff can hire an attorney on a contingency fee basis, a practice that is prohibited in most other developed countries. While TPLF is not necessary to increase access to U.S. courts, it does create a whole new set of problems and conflicts of interest for litigants, their attorneys, and society at large. Let's start with the litigants. TPLF supporters allege that the practice is risk-free for plaintiffs, since, if they lose, they typically don't have to repay the investor. But more than 95 percent of U.S. civil cases end in settlements rather than going to trial. And a closer look at one recent case demonstrates major dangers for plaintiffs if they accept a settlement that's less than that demanded by the investor. In this case, a Texas-based security company, DeepNines, obtained an $8 million loan from a TPLF firm to fund patent litigation against a competitor. In the end, DeepNines received a $25 million settlement. However, because of the terms of the TPLF contract, the investor received $10.1 million of the settlement, while DeepNines, after paying attorneys' fees, netted less than $800,000 -- only about 3 percent of the total settlement amount. To add insult to injury, the investor then turned around and sued DeepNines for settling for an amount below what the investor's financial models suggested they could receive. The case was eventually resolved through a confidential settlement. Like Gordon Gekko's insider trading machinations, the DeepNines example shows that many TPLF contracts are rigged in favor of investors. For instance, the contracts often provide for "waterfall" payouts -- meaning that the TPLF investors take a higher percentage of the first dollars of settlement, while the plaintiff's share only rises as the total settlement figure reaches an amount pre-set by the investors. Thus, plaintiffs are pressured to hold out for settlements or judgments far above what they would have accepted otherwise in order to satisfy their investors. And defendants suffer as well, since they are forced to contend with longer and costlier litigation. This scenario stands the justice system on its head by putting the investor in the driver's seat while hurting the primary parties in the case. In the DeepNines case, the plaintiff still had substantial control of the lawsuit. But when it comes to class actions and other multi-plaintiff lawsuits, it is the investment firms, not the plaintiffs, that often appear to be in control. For example, a leading TPLF firm invested $4 million in a high-profile, controversial lawsuit brought by Ecuadoran plaintiffs against the Chevron Corporation. The firm's contract stipulated that it would have veto power over the choice of attorneys and also receive precedence over the plaintiffs in the disbursement of any settlement or judgment funds. In all, the firm stood to earn tens of millions of dollars in the event of a successful settlement or judgment. As for the Ecuadoran plaintiffs, their contract specified that they would receive the balance of any settlement or judgment only after eight different tiers of funders, attorneys, and "advisers" were paid first. It is unclear whether they knew what they were signing up for; according to Fortune magazine, several plaintiffs acknowledged their approval of the 75-page TPLF contract with merely a fingerprint. Late last year, the funder announced it was ending its involvement in the Chevron case. This occurred months after a U.S. District Court judge in New York issued an opinion finding ample evidence of fraud by the plaintiffs' attorneys in the case. All this suggests that the Chevron Ecuador case is being primarily driven by funders and plaintiffs' attorneys, not the actual plaintiffs. As with the DeepNines case, this situation makes a mockery of our system of justice by placing the profiteering of outside investors ahead of the interests of the parties in court. TPLF also creates significant problems for lawyers. Lawyer Ethics 101 states that lawyers have a fiduciary duty to their clients. But this fundamental relationship is jeopardized when a third-party funder enters the picture. For one thing, when TPLF investors get involved in a case, they often front the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. So when an attorney is managing a case, will they act in the best interests of their client, as they are supposed to do, or in the interests of the third-party funder paying their salary? In addition, at least one court has determined that attorney-client privilege doesn't apply to communications between third-party investors and attorneys. So if an investor asks an attorney for sensitive information about a case it is funding, that information could be subpoenaed by the opposing party and used against the plaintiff. So we've seen how TPLF benefits funders and hurt litigants. But the biggest loser from TPLF might be society at large. This is because we all rely on an impartial civil justice system to resolve disputes in a fair and expeditious manner. When TPLF debases that system by putting investor profits ahead of justice, society is the loser. It's time for policymakers to step up to the plate and curtail this practice, particularly in the context of class action litigation. While by no means a cure-all for the problems facing the U.S. justice system, it can help nudge the system away from the values of Gordon Gekko and back toward those of Atticus Finch. Because when it comes to the delivery of justice, greed is not good. ========= FBI sees more hedge fund trading probe informants Mon, Feb 27 17:51 PM EST By Grant McCool NEW YORK (Reuters) - The FBI says it has enough informants lined up to keep its investigations of suspected illegal insider trading at hedge funds going for at least five more years. In a briefing on Monday with reporters at the New York office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation just blocks away from Wall Street, agents who manage squads of investigators likened the probes to penetrating a secret society. The investigations are building on a mission dubbed "Perfect Hedge" that have led to the prosecutions of multimillionaire Galleon Group hedge fund founder Raj Rajaratnam and dozens of traders, executives and research consultants since late 2009. "We have cooperators set up for years to come," said David Chaves, a supervisory special agent for securities and commodities fraud investigations. He told reporters that the informants include cooperating witnesses -- people who have been identified as conducting illegal trading but who have agreed to assist authorities to catch others in the hopes of receiving a lighter sentence -- and sources within hedge funds. "I don't want to say it's infinite, but clearly in five years we think we will be working it," Chaves said. The Galleon prosecution and other recent insider-trading cases have used secretly-recorded telephone conversations to gather evidence, an investigatory tool traditionally used in organized crime or narcotics cases. The use of wiretaps sent a chill through the hedge fund industry closed to outsiders and what the FBI calls "undercover resistant." Investigators have tracked mobile phone calls, instant messaging and social media to collect evidence. The FBI says it is alert to new ways in which people may try to exchange information on publicly traded companies to gain an illegal edge. "We will go to whatever lengths we have to keep up with changes in technology," said Richard Jacobs, another FBI supervisory special agent for white-collar crime cases. Both officials emphasized that law enforcement believes that the overwhelming majority of hedge funds and their traders are law-abiding and run their firms responsibly. A similar briefing was given to reporters in Washington on Monday, where officials discussed the agency's shift in focus of the past 10 years to financial fraud cases involving larger amounts of money than in the past. For example, out of the 2,600 mortgage fraud investigations open nationally, 70 percent involve more than $1 million, compared with smaller bank frauds under $25,000 that were previously typical of the caseload. In New York, the FBI said that to date, out of 64 arrests made in "Perfect Hedge," 59 people have been convicted or have pleaded guilty. These prosecutions, in partnership with the office of the Manhattan U.S. Attorney and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, have been an important deterrent, the agents said. Another tool for deterrence is the publicity the cases have generated in the United States and abroad. To that end, Michael Douglas, the Academy Award-winning star of the 1987 movie "Wall Street," agreed to a request from the FBI to record a public service announcement. "In the movie 'Wall Street' I played Gordon Gekko, who cheated to profit while innocent investors lost their savings," Douglas, 67, says in the video recording released on Monday. "The movie was fiction but the problem is real," Douglas says in the video. "Our economy is increasingly dependent on the success and integrity of the financial markets. If a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is." (Reporting By Grant McCool, additional reporting by Aruna Viswanatha in Washington; Editing by Martha Graybow) =============== Author SantoTraficante Re: FT - litigation funding Is this the one Sheffieldsteeler http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d8eca56-2346-11e2-a46b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2BD6fWtOl Oiling the cogs of the legal economy may not sound appealing, but litigation funding has emerged from nowhere over the past few years to become a viable, alternative asset class for the adventurous investor. There are two quoted litigation funds on the London Stock Exchange, plus a slew of private outfits including offerings from the likes of Harbour, City of London Group and Calunius Capital (not to mention a longer list of hedge funds that dabble in this space). High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d8eca56-2346-11e2-a46b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2BD79KS6e The very simple idea is to fund other people’s legal actions, whether they are simple commercial court cases over a real estate development that hasn’t gone as planned (a typical deal for Burford, one of the London-listed funds) or patent and antitrust actions (the focus of fellow listed fund Juridica). It will come as no surprise to discover that in the core US market, the cost of litigation has been rising at around 8 per cent each year and that these actions can take anywhere between three and five years to come to fruition. As a result, a number of S&P 500 companies have long been looking for other stakeholders to help shoulder the cost. High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. Under historic English rules of champerty and maintenance, third parties were excluded from profiting from someone else’s legal actions. But in most of the US (though not all states) and also here in the UK, those ancient rules have been abandoned. Yet despite these fair winds, third party litigation funding isn’t huge. One recent research report (by a firm called Execution) put the potential size of the main US market at $44bn (£27bn), but in reality the actual market is probably currently worth no more than a few billion pounds. London stockmarket-listed funds have been at the forefront of litigation funding, and I think we’ve had just enough data from the likes of Juridica and Burford to begin to make a considered judgement about this most alternative of investment ideas. On paper both the London-listed (but largely US-focused) funds seem fairly evenly matched with Juridica the pioneer, having listed in December 2007, and Burford coming a little later in 2009. Burford trades at 105.3p (just below net asset value of 106p) and boasts net assets of £191m (making it the bigger outfit), while Juridica’s £120m of gross assets trades at 102.5p against net asset value of 114p (which is a discount of about 10 per cent). Yet Burford’s shares have sometimes traded at a whopping 30 per cent premium to its assets, so its recent share price weakness has put it back on (close to) level pegging with Juridica, which has had a rally from a recent low where the discount was as wide as 40 per cent. One small aside – Burford recently bought a UK legal insurance company called FirstAssist, making it closer to an all-purpose legal financial boutique. Both Burford and Juridica account for their investments in their balance sheet in slightly different ways, so those stated discounts can be misleading. What is obvious is that litigation funding is a classic form of long-term investing involving fundamentally illiquid assets, making it very similar to venture capital as an asset class. Juridica has been quietly working its way through a portfolio of claims that includes 12 patent cases (total value $38m-£23m) and six antitrust claims ($180m-£111m), as well as other, smaller suits. There have already been at least half a dozen successful resolutions and, according to one internal analysis of five claims in the autumn of 2011, the average internal rate of return was about 78 per cent, based on a timescale that varied between 185 days and 1,005 days. Looking at Juridica and its capital fund raising cycle, it should be very close to realising its portfolio of assets (assuming an average duration of three to five years), and sure enough it has recently been handing money back to investors at a fairly decent clip. ================== Likely take over date? onlookout Ghostriderinsky, I believe Rudy is pointing out enough soft indicators to show that GKP will not be a producer - despite a few cosmetic statements on the website (and of course those throwaway 2 pages in the August Investor presentation). If we were to be a producer, I would have expected a shed load of activity, and we have no real evidence. We have even had (was it Mikey's?) anecdotal reports from Kurdistan contacts that it's almost as if GKP staff are winding down. Compare this, for example, to Sirius (SXX, Potash miner to-be)) - they've recruited far and wide for the last year, pinching key personnel from all perspectives of the to-be future operation......... building a big team............and planning permission (or not), and finance, won't even be known until March/April 2013! Nope, I too believe we are going, just a question of when IMHO I think what Rudy is saying is that if we were heading to full scale production on our own we should now be in the process of employing all the necessary staff/ experts to make this happen.Where is the evidence of this? === Re: Likely take over date? blacksash Does no one even take into account that a TO may not happen at all and GKP will just slowly move forward into production??? Everyone last year was predicting a TO this year, while the year isn't yet over i think we can basically rule it out though. Everyone screaming for TO is selling themselves short as GKP need another 2-3 years for anything like what people are hoping for to be realised. Saying all that though i still expect a Shaikan sale within 6 months for a price that will leave everyone outraged. =========================================================================== B9, Exit event awards in a word, if Shaiken is sold then we still have BB and SA to look forward to although IMHO SA will be included in any Shaiken sale with it's 80% WI. Whichever way you look at it GKP has huge potential from these levels and anyone looking to buy Shaiken/SA would have an eye on BB and AB, I think TK will look to sell the whole lot, but if he doesn't it will be far from a disappointment IMHO. = Rudy09 In addition to what Sash said, our BOD presently consists of the below: TK, CEO and Chairman John Gerstenlauer, COO Ewen Ainsworth, Financial Director Ali A. Al-Qabandi, Business Development Director Tony Peart, Legal and Commercial Director Umur Eminkahyagil, Country Manager - Kurdistan Chris Garret, VP oF Operations All roles I understand. Then we have: Mohamed Messaoudi, Country Manager - Algeria? Then of course our 3 NEDS, messrs Guthrie, Hanson and Varzi. My understanding is that we have fully retrenched from Algeria, so I don't fully understand Mohmed's role or have visibility of it, so from an operational perspective that leave us 7 people, looking to prepare to pump billions of barrels of oil whilst hitting the ground running, as the KRG will need and demand, whilst ramping up to the full FTSE list. Really? -No one heading up HR? With the huge growth in personnel surely needed. Really? -No one heading up development and planning? -No one heading up exploration, communications or CG *cough? -No Chairman (if we are serious about main listing) If this a company looking to ramp up to production, then it's worrying IMO as a PI. If it's a company looking to be sold or to sell it's assets once proved up, then there should be few concerns. Why? Because it is the latter it has all the hallmarks of. AIMVHO == Abu Dhabi oil investment up six times in 5 years No Quarter Absolutely. Gulf sovereign wealth funds as likely as anyone to be sniffing around for oil assets in Kurdistan. ADIA $365bn assets incl. $36bn cash.... Then there's IPIC, QIA, ICD, KIA, SAMA etc. Likely these boys will/would want OGL sorted first though.... over to Barney!! http://www.ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2012/11/state6601.htm? http://www.emirates247.com/business/economy-finance/abu-dhabi-oil-investment-up-six-times-in-5-years-2011-11-18-1.428917 Oil sector grows 7.4% during 2005-2010 to reach 49.7% of GDP By StaffPublished Friday, November 18, 2011 Abu Dhabi has boosted investment in its massive hydrocarbon sector by nearly six times to a record high in 2010 as the emirate is pushing ahead with mega projects to expand the industry, according to official data. From around Dh7.2 billion in 2005, the gross fixed capital formation (investments) in the oil and gas sector edged up slightly to around Dh7.8 billion in 2006 and Dh8.5 billion in 2007 before it began its rapid climb in the following years. It leaped to Dh18.5 billion in 2008 and around Dh33.9 billion in 2009 before hitting an all time high of Dh43.7 billion in 2010. “The sharp rise in investments in the oil sector was due to an increase in spending on oilfield development plans as well as a large rise in investment in fixed assets in oil equipment,” the Abu Dhabi Department of Economic Development said in its 2010 report. It showed the surge allied with higher crude prices to boost the hydrocarbon sector’s contribution to GDP to Dh308 billion in 2010 from Dh15.5 billion in 2005, an average annual growth of around 7.4 per cent. The report showed the price of OPEC’s basket of crudes averaged nearly $77.45 a barrel last year compared with $61.06 in 2009. It estimated the oil sector’s share of the emirate’s GDP at around 49.7 per cent in 2010. Abu Dhabi is the main oil producer in the UAE, which aims to boost its crude output capacity above three million barrels per day in the next few years. Official figures showed Abu Dhabi alone is pumping more than $10 billion during 2005-2011 into crude capacity expansion projects, which target both its onshore and offshore areas, mainly the super-giant Upper Zakum and other major fields. Around $1.5 billion (Dh5.5 billion) would be spent on the development of the offshore Upper Zakum to add 200,000 bpd to its 550,000 bpd capacity. An equivalent sum has also been allocated for the expansion of the mammoth Umm Shaif offshore field and $two billion for the Nasr Field development by the Abu Dhabi Marine Oil Company (ADMA-OPCO). The Abu Dhabi Onshore Oil Company (ADCO), one of the largest 10 oil companies in the world, is investing nearly Dh5.5 billion into its Phase 1 Development Programme, which will add about 400,000 bpd to its output. The projects are part of an ongoing programme by the UAE, a key OPEC member, to expand its sustainable crude oil capacity, which official sources estimated at nearly 2.8 million bpd at the end of 2010. While such projects will boost capacity to well above three million bpd in four years, there are plans to push ahead with expansions to reach 3.5 million bpd in the long term to tap the country’s massive hydrocarbon reserves of nearly 98.7 billion barrels, more than eight per cent of the world’s total proven oil wealth. =============== Parliamentary energy: oil and gas law will be presented to Parliament soon 2012-11-04 11:00:20 BAGHDAD (Iba) ... Said Rehab blessing member of the oil and energy parliamentary that the exchange of visits between the Territory and the center and the committees formed for the purpose of resolving disagreement oil production and export yielded positive results agreements have been reached that satisfies both parties, and during the next few will show the oil and gas law to a vote. The grace told the independent press (Iba) that "the center is keen to be his relationship region is good, and that of its working hard to finish the oil and gas law and approval as soon as possible, a committee was formed comprising members of its Committee and the ministers of oil and wealth in the center and the region to resolve outstanding differences and discuss dues of the oil companies. " She noted that "recently experienced mutual visits of the committees in the region and Baghdad have been come up with recommendations of committees submitted to the Council of Ministers and the cause Bhlhalh outstanding matters Khit been agreed that allows the province to export 20 thousand barrels per day For his part, declared the territory he will abide by this, and the central government For its part, will stick to pay dues in the form of advances. " She blessing that "the Government of the Territory committed a lot of irregularities concerning the export and production of oil, but formed committees and put points on the letters and ended many of these irregularities and violations. And that "the government tried to end the differences Center for catalysts for the political process forward without problems. For the adoption of oil and gas law explained Committee member that "copies many of the draft law have reached the Commission on oil and energy in the House of Representatives and this is what makes Committee unable to reach of the law to a vote but after studying and rounded of views between the Governments of the region and the center of this law will be introduced during the period coming to a vote. " ========== Barney71255 today 06:38 TO GKP A court attendee please hand this I strongly believe GKP could add further strength in the case by identifying and using the below public info. As a request could someone print this and hand to the public relations girl at GKP. I believe we have the power to influence 1) collaboration agreement signed Feb 2006 when Rex had contacts in KRG 2) Hawrami becomes energy minister May 2006 Hawrami identifies below article major issues with money laundering, corruption and probably backhanders. This is a step change in the business environment and should be emphasised in the court. Rex says pulled things together maybe but only under old regime. So pulling together doesn't mean keeping together 3) TKI mtg with Rex and Hawrami in June 2006 where Rex says nothing as Rex is type of agent or contact now with no influence. Hawrami wants true oil companies and a radical change from past business practises 4) Kurd oil law progresses and true financial and oil company qualifications required 5) Oct 2012 Hawrami questions why Excalibur at Washington mtg reflects his view on the company's qualifications ".............................. Posted mid Oct If you read the below account of Hawrami cleaning things up after Mustafa back in 2006 it sounds like many doggy deals and individuals were active that needed to be removed. It makes you wonder how many other deals Excalibur were in on??? Oil deals signed by Nawshirwan Mustafa were waste of Kurdistan's Natural Resources: Ashti Hawrami 29.8.2012 Rudaw Kurdistan Regional Government Minister for Natural Resources Ashti Hawrami. Photo: Reuters • See Related Links It has become clear to everyone that the claim that says I have a share in the Norwegian company is not true. Unfortunately, Gorran only intends to attack the KRG and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Mr. Mustafa was the one wasting the region’s natural resources. August 29, 2012 ERBIL-Hewlêr, Kurdistan region 'Iraq', — Kurdistan’s Minister of Natural Resources Ashti Hawrami sat down with Rudaw to discuss a recent statement he made about amendments to a contract signed by Nawshirwan Mustafa, now leader of the Change Movement (Gorran), back in 2006. He addresses criticisms made by Gorran about Kurdistan Regional Government’s (KRG) oil policy and how his ministry is proceeding on a number of issues related to the high-profile oil and gas portfolio. Q: You issued a statement on August 14 where you mentioned making changes to a contract signed between Nawshirwan Mustafa, the current leader of Gorran, and an oil company before 2006, when Mustafa was a senior leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). Have you improved the contract? Ashti Hawrami: We made many changes to the contract and to the amount of the land designated for the company to search for oil. The contract, signed at Mustafa’s request, was done very unprofessionally. A large area of land from Sulaimani (Sulaimaniyah) to Garmian to Bawanur was given to just one company to search for oil. When I became the minister of natural resources in 2006, I revoked this contract. The way the contract was signed was very suspicious. It was not the oil company’s fault, but the shortcomings were in the way the contract was signed and the ignorance of the other party who had signed the contract. A vast area of land in Kurdistan was given to one company. Is that loyalty to Sulaimani and its natural resources, as some Gorran leaders and Mr. Mustafa always claim? At the time, Mustafa was considered the number one decision-maker in the area. It is questionable that he allowed such a contract to be signed under his authority. Fortunately, we could fix the errors of the contract and save Kurdistan millions of dollars. Instead of thanking us for this, they started a campaign to ruin the reputation of our oil policy. Q: Why is it bad to designate a large area of land to one company to search for oil? Ashti Hawrami: Of course it is bad. First, let me explain the errors of the old contract and the changes we made to it. We divided the land into four areas and gave it to five companies, instead of one. Mustafa signed the contract with only a $5 million signature bonus for the KRG,www.ekurd.net while the new contract with the five oil companies will make a hundred times more income for the Kurdistan Region, estimated at around $500 million. The new contract gives less than a 10 percent share to the oil companies whereas the old one gave more than 30 percent. If the KRG were to follow Mustafa’s expertise in signing oil contracts, the entire region would have garnered only eight contracts, while we have currently signed 50 contracts with various foreign companies. Q: What is wrong with having only eight contracts? Ashti Hawrami: It is wrong because the companies will receive more shares and the government less. It will also decrease competition between oil companies in the region. In addition, it will reduce the bonus from the companies to Kurdistan’s infrastructure. If such contracts like the one Mr. Mustafa signed were to continue in the Kurdistan Region, a large part of the region’s natural resources would be wasted. Gorran accuses us of wasting Kurdistan’s resources without looking at the contents of contracts we have signed according to KRG’s oil legislation. Mr. Mustafa was the one wasting the region’s natural resources. The old contract gave the oil company a share three times more than in other contracts the KRG signed. We were able to return 5 percent that was designated to two people, an Iraqi and a Kurd, to the KRG. We returned the income to the government instead of it secretly going to those two people. The question is why was that much given to two people? What is more surprising was that the 5 percent share was not mentioned in the contract; we discovered it. Why wasn’t it mentioned in the contract? Was there more money that disappeared during contract negotiations? That’s another question. If we were to follow this pattern, instead of getting $5 billion for Kurdistan infrastructure projects from oil revenue, we would only receive $40 million and a lot of money would have been stolen. Q: Besides the contract you mentioned, are there other contracts that have been signed by Mustafa? If yes, what were the contents of those contracts? Ashti Hawrami: Yes, other contracts have been signed between Mustafa and small companies in Sulaimani province. Some of those contracts laundered a 20 percent share to unknown people. We discovered these shares and returned them to the KRG as well. I don’t know why Mustafa was silent about the money laundering and why he didn’t thank us when we discovered it. Q: Gorran says that KRG’s oil contracts are production sharing contracts rather than service contracts as we see with the central government. What do you say to this? Ashti Hawrami: We sign oil contracts according to KRG’s oil legislation. Article 37 indicates that contracts must be sharing contracts between the KRG and oil companies. The law was passed after eighth parliamentary sessions and 111 lawmakers voted in favor, including some lawmakers from Mustafa’s faction. In addition, in order to sign service contracts you have to have oil revenue already and we didn’t have that. We also didn’t have the funds to sign service contracts. KRG’s situation is very different from that of the central government. It is like if you have two people and one of them owns a gold store and the other is looking for gold mines. We ask people to come and look for the gold mine and tell them that when they find it they will have their share. Iraq is past that stage. Iraq’s oil fields have already been found and can be drilled. Q: Gorran also says that the KRG has given oil refineries to the private sector, but still pays the salaries of the employees and guards. Is this true? Ashti Hawrami: This is a baseless claim. If there is such a thing we will investigate and deal with it according to the law. If anyone has any evidence about this, he should tell us. There are a number of small oil refineries in the Kurdistan Region. Some of them are old and were built before the oil legislation was passed. Most of them were built to refine crude oil coming from the south. It is said that one of the refineries is owned by a Gorran MP. We decided to shut down the refineries or at least improve the old ones. We also decided to reduce the oil tankers on the roads. During my visit with Mr. Mustafa, we discussed this issue. I told him many people who work in the refineries have families and that if we shut them down they would lose their source of income. I also asked him if he was suspicious about the transparency of oil revenues in Kurdistan and his answer was that I appeared honest and clean in performing my duty. I asked him why he didn’t say the same thing on TV so people know the truth, but he said “why would I praise a government that I wish to overthrow?” I told him that implementing such a policy makes him unpopular and independent people like me would not vote for him. Some of the things Gorran officials say about oil revenue they know very well are not true. But they want to continue to confuse people and make our enemies happy. The leaders of Gorran would not dare to criticize the Iraqi government that has withheld Kurdistan’s billions of dollars’ worth of oil in recent years. Iraq refines 700,000 barrels of oil for local needs every day and Kurdistan’s share is 135,000 barrels, but Iraq only sends 15,000 barrels. Unfortunately, Gorran only intends to attack the KRG and the Ministry of Natural Resources. Gladly, not all opposition factions share Gorran’s attitude. Q: In your statement, you also mentioned that Gorran requested that the Iraqi government provide satellite pictures of locations where the KRG is exporting oil so that they can televise them. Do you have any evidence of this? Ashti Hawrami: Yes. It is said that a letter from one of Gorran’s officials was sent to Shahristani, Iraq’s deputy prime minister for energy, in which they requested such information. The letter is more like spying on Kurdistan. Such actions shouldn’t be conducted by any loyal Kurd or any political parties in Kurdistan. Gorran’s hostility toward KRG’s oil policy started long ago. We want the Kurdish people to realize the difference, that we will still provide them with services in spite of the central government’s hostility toward KRG’s oil policy. In the letter, Gorran requested a meeting with Shahristani. The letters were exchanged via email and through Haidar. In the letter, Gorran asked for Shahristani’s assistance in attacking KRG’s oil policy and finding a way to rescue them from the lawsuit that was filed against them. In the letter, both sides proudly address the reduction of Kurdistan’s share from Iraq’s oil. They consider my criticism of Baghdad for the reduction unfair. Gorran doesn’t care whether Baghdad deprives Kurdistan of its rights. So far, Gorran’s media has not said anything about the issue. Q: The letter also points out that you have a share in a Norwegian company. It also mentions that you spent $6 million buying a house in England after you became the minister of natural resources. What do you have to say about this? Ashti Hawrami: It has become clear to everyone that the claim that says I have a share in the Norwegian company is not true. Even in the letter, Gorran asks Shahristani for proof of whether I have a share in the Norwegian company, but he didn’t have any proof. The other claim is also a lie, because I bought the house 10 years before I became the minister in 2006. I had a successful business in England. I challenge anyone to provide reliable evidence that I have a share in anything. In the past, I filed a law suit against Hawlati newspaper that echoed the same lie about my house in England. I have not withdrawn my complaint and I will not. When former Prime Minister Barham Salih and current Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani contacted me about coming back to Kurdistan to become the minister of natural resources,www.ekurd.net I was already running a successful business. I told them I didn’t have the opportunity to become a Peshmerga or serve Kurdistan in the past, so this was an opportunity for me to come back and serve in this way. I really came back to Kurdistan with this enthusiasm. Q: In your statement, you mentioned that until 2009, the KRG had only received $743 million in cash out of the $5 billion from oil revenue. The companies themselves will spend the rest of the money on service projects. But Gorran insists that the government has received the whole $5 billion. What can you tell us about this? Ashti Hawrami: In 2009, we published all the information in a book in both Kurdish and Arabic. We also explained details to parliament that the money was divided into two parts. First, part of the money ($743 million) was to be given to the government in cash. The rest of the money ($4,220,000,000) would be used by the companies for projects according to the contracts, the most important of which was exporting oil. During my visit, I explained this in detail to Mr. Mustafa. Those in Gorran who understand contracts and the economy know that what they say is not true. But they want to deceive people. It is insulting to the Kurdish people that Gorran’s media sees them as that low and simple and lies about KRG’s oil policy. For example, $350 million out of the $743 million was spent on water projects in Garmian and Duhok. We gave the data on the spending to parliament. Former Prime Minister Barham Salih mentioned in parliament that the government wished to have all the money so it could spend it on the projects. Q: What was the rest of the $743 million used for? Ashti Hawrami: Some of the projects were carried out before I became minister. At the time, there were two administrations, Sulaimani and Erbil, and the income was split between them. As I heard at the time, Mr. Mustafa’s decisions superseded the government. It is said some of the project money disappeared in Sulaimani. It is fair to ask Mr. Mustafa if some of that money was used to build his movement’s infrastructure. In general, we will collect data on how the money was spent for the projects and take it to parliament. Q: KNN television says that the KRG has signed 40 contracts and that in all of them only 20 percent revenue will go to the government. Forty percent will go to the foreign companies and the other 20 percent will go to local companies, most of them owned by KDP and PUK officials. If this is not true, what are the figures? Ashti Hawrami: By taking a quick look at the contracts, any educated person will realize that these are all lies. All their data is wrong. The companies’ shares from oil revenue are not more than 10 percent. No political parties have a share in the oil contracts. When the contracts were signed under their authority, a huge share was given to the companies with some secret shares for some people. They think it is still the same. These statistics do not exist in the contracts that the minister of natural resources has signed. Q: When you visited Mustafa, did you explain everything to him? Gorran says they don’t know anything since everything is a secret? Ashti Hawrami: Mr. Mustafa is aware of the situation as he was a part of the oil contracts from the beginning. I explained everything to him during my visit. I am sure he knows now that what is being mentioned in his party’s media is not true. The subject of oil is one of the biggest strategic subjects in Kurdistan. It should not become a political issue. I know Gorran knows that KRG’s oil policy is successful, but it is concerned that the KDP and PUK’s power will increase so its view on oil is a political one. The oil issue is related to all of Kurdistan. Gorran is part of this community; I would like for them to participate in this. It is not acceptable to continue to behave like the enemies of the Kurds. I urge Gorran officials to use their conscience and stop confusing people and being hostile toward KRG’s oil policy. Copyright ©, respective author or news agency, rudaw.net ================ =================== Good Morning all.......... Just a reminder of the good news from Reuters on Friday afternoon, a few minutes after market close: http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL5E8M270A20121102 (Full text below) Despite some posts to the contrary, I don't expect an RNS about this, as we did not have an RNS when production stopped, it was just mentioned in the accounts. However, it is good news and significant for GKP. Let's hope that the figures increase, giving a reasonable income stream. Information such as this has been presented to us via the press a few times before, maybe by design? The timing of the release means that the market and the sp have not yet reacted to it. There's a lot of hope that today will be fireworks day at court. Do we get to hear about the litigation backers today? My suspicion is that the current backers are not the original backers, resulting in the potential delay in Ex raising the funds required by the Court, but I am sure that we will find out soon. The cross examination of RW is not over yet! Good luck this week to all genuine holders! 'Gulf Keystone resumes pumping of Iraqi Kurdish oil Fri Nov 2, 2012 4:42pm GMT ARBIL, Iraq Nov 2 (Reuters) - UK-listed oil exploration firm Gulf Keystone has restarted production in Kurdistan, ending a half-year hiatus since the regional government asked operators there to stop pumping, industry sources said. The company is now producing 5,000 to 7,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd) for sale on the domestic market and is developing its Shaikan field to raise output to around 40,000 bpd by mid-2013, some of which may be exported, the sources said. "They are doing 5,000 bpd-plus to the local market," one of the sources said. The Shaikan field is Gulf Keystone's prize asset, from which it aims to produce as much as 150,000 bpd by 2015. An autonomous region since 1991, Iraqi Kurdistan is often touted as one of the final frontiers for on-shore oil exploration and has signed contracts with foreign majors such Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Total. But a long-running dispute with Baghdad, which rejects the deals as illegal, earlier this year led to a disruption in payments to operators in the northern region. Kurdistan says its right to grant contracts to foreign companies is enshrined in the Iraqi constitution, which was drawn up following the 2003 invasion that ousted Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein. The Kurds have since passed their own oil and gas law, whilst disagreements among Iraq's Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurdish factions in the national power-sharing government have delayed a long-awaited hydrocarbons law.' =========== ========== Sun 20:33 Contingency Plans Just some thoughts on Contingency planning as we all know the Oil Business thinks years ahead. We all know what Contingency means, :- “to prepare for a future event or circumstance, which is possible or likely but cannot be predicted with certainty, or in the absence of certainty in events“. “Cannot be predicted with certainty or in the absence of certainty in events” is interesting in context with GKP, but could Excalibur have been predicted. By November 2009 GKP had announced they had 4.2bboip, and TK appeared on CNN with those now famous words, “we will have to control Investor expectations“. Way before that, I would have expected the Rex Wempen to have been one of action. So perhaps it is circumstantial, but as we have learnt preparing for Litigation is not a 2 minute affair, and Clifford Chance's advice to Rex would have taken some time. So is it possible had the grapevine been heard talking about Excalibur rearing its head by GKP, even before Todd gave the CNN interview, because in a little over 12 months on the 29th December the news broke about Excalibur. As hearsay cannot be broken by RNS, the Opening of the Claim would have been the first time it could be mentioned. With the Oil Law expected to be passed quite soon after a new Iraqi Government was formed in 2010, the announcement of Excalibur Litigation must have come as a God send at bthe time to GKP, though as we now know we still have no Oil Law, though in November 2009 nothing could be left to chance or predicted. So were TK’s CNN words “we have to control Investor expectation” the start of contingency plans. Remembering Malaki in late 2010 talking of accepting the Kurdistan Licences and Sharistani’s rebuke of them shows how unpredictable Iraqi Politics can be, as can subsequent news we have had from Iraqi. What if GKP could leave nothing to chance, so if the grapevine was true and Excalibur did manage to process the claim further and raise its head, would mean they had prepared for every contingency possible. This meant that GKP had in place a contingency plan of using Excalibur to gain time if the Oil Law was passed, as it would mean a Takeover before Shaikan was fully Appraised would have been at peanut prices. It certainly meant that GKP would have had to cover every eventuality that is possible to have happened, and perhaps better explains other things that have happened with GKP, bringing them into prospective, such as the lack of Exports, the sale of Akri Bejeel, Funding prices etc. Perhaps we are not giving credit where credits due, as perhaps GKP has been preparing long before the Court Case started, just needing a few final facts to complete their preparation……. IMO, that is why the request for the Funder’s who had been approached by Excalibur pre trial to be named happened, which gave GKP permission to go after emails from those approached Funders…….. In the course of a slow 2 years, I am 110% certain that Excalibur has changed what has happened for GKP several times. Funding requirements will have been changed as the sale of Akri Bejeel would have been effected by “until true Rights had been proved” Any prospect of an outright sale of GKP or Shaikan would have been the same. It has all helped the Appraisal of Shaikan. Yep, in the unpredictable event of an Oil Law being passed, our Excalibur has been a God Send IMO, as they have “allowed” GKP to Appraise Shaikan and further forward work on Sheikh Adi, Ber Berh & Akri Bejeel. Also an added advantage has been gained, which is the additional OIP that has been found in the meantime, which has in turn aided GKP to gain more than enough Funding to ward off any future pre-emptive Takeover attempts, for perhaps the whole of 2013. I contemplated the thought of GKP drilling SH-7 and exploring the Permian coming up with huge amounts of Gas or Condensates, as Todd and Co know as each day passes the, “the offer that can’t be refused” . ================= zoso 75 Monday 21:57 The following is a series of snapshots of the day and are my views only. Today was, I think, a re-run of all the previous days that RW has been on the stand - he was evasive, overly-verbose, and I lost count of the number of times JG asked RW to answer the question instead of meandering around the houses. When cornered, which was so often I eventually gave up taking notes, he would mumble and stumble but never admit he was in the wrong or that he had misled anyone or told lies/fibs/untruths. He would answer “I don’t agree”. I’m sure there will be plenty of verbatim accounts of what was said, and I tried my best to take copious notes but it moved very quickly, and the moment you pay too much attention to what is being said well, that’s the moment the note-taking goes downhill (mine does anyway). I can provide a fairly clear description of the opening exchanges: JG’s initial questioning focused on the identification of the structures/blocks which Excalibur claim were at the centre of the agreement between TKI/GKP/Exc. Very skilfully JG teased the following out of RW: There was no geological survey of any block or structure completed by anyone related to Excalibur; There was no documentation - emails or otherwise - to suggest ‘the area’ (not yet even referred to as ‘Shaikan‘) had ever been allocated to Excalibur despite the fact RW claimed in later emails that it was ‘a done deal‘; There were no partners for Excalibur; There was no funding for Excalibur - funding was contingent upon a deal being done first, although where the money was coming from was at best vague and at worst non-existent. When JG asked him which blocks he was referring to in his email about ’a done deal’, RW could not provide an answer - and he didn’t. Additionally, JG stated that without a complex geological survey there could not possibly be any up-front funding for what amounted to a map with a circle drawn on it - think of a kid’s Pirate Treasure Map and you’ll get the idea, ‘X’ marks the spot…...or in this case, an oval marks the spot! Despite all the above, RW was firing off emails to his associates (Franchie and Kinnear) claiming a deal was in place, he had funding, he was ready to go, but Todd was holding up the deal. One message to Kinnear claimed “Todd is wasting time”, and that RW was “…needing closure in Kurdistan”. RW wanted to move forward and close ‘the deal‘ and initially denied being unreasonable in his efforts to do this. However, it was clear there was no deal to sign, and when JG put it to RW that he was impatient, RW denied this by claiming he just wanted to push ahead, yes he was anxious but he felt he had to push hard to get a deal together……he was an entrepreneur…… JG: “How do you define ‘Entrepreneur?” RW: “He plans, builds a team, gets experts, gets traction…” JG subsequently read out an email from Todd which claimed “Rex was too eager, and he wouldn’t tick all the boxes“. Additionally, TK felt that Rex didn’t understand the oil business insofar as conducting oil deals and the time-frames involved. In an email to Franchie, RW said “We remain on schedule…..signing next week possibly…..proven field……need signatures…..” “The Kurds want a US company, the minister (Ashti) has set-up a separate block for us, I have reserved this block” But as we saw earlier, RW couldn't say which block because none had been defined, assigned or agreed upon. It was pure fantasy. In an email to Kinnear RW claimed there was a “….positive outcome….general agreement between the Consortium and the KRG”. Rex wanted a deal in Kurdistan - it didn’t matter what kind of deal or the content of the deal - he just wanted one. After further probing JG concluded “I believe you were being significantly over-optimistic Mr Wempen”. Eventually, and after a great deal of avoidance, RW simply answered “Yes, but I’m realistic, If I didn’t tend toward optimism I wouldn’t get very far.” After this information emerged it became clear that RW had, as JG eventually put it, over-egged the pudding with regard to blocks/structures, deals, funding, his own and Excalibur’s position and contribution, and his ability to conduct business whether it be oil or otherwise. JG mentioned ‘Over-Egging’ quite a lot during the course of the day…… Over-promising, bigging himself up, deals that didn’t exist, blocks/structures that were not defined in any way apart from having an oval drawn around them on a map which hardly amounted to a geological assessment…..it all became rather repetitive. After reading a further email from RW to Kinnear in which RW grandly stated “Everything is down to the next 48 hours”, JG said to him “You were in a parallel universe weren’t you?” RW replied “I was trying to go as fast as possible”. In an email to Todd RW asked “Have you looked at the block? Do we need Azad to come to London (to sign the deal)?” And on and on it went……very strange. Reams of emails and messages where RW claimed deals were done, blocks were assigned, funding was in the bag. And EVERY TIME a claim like this was aired in the court, JG shot it down unceremoniously. It was embarrassing. After an hour or so of this it was clear that the rest of the day, and the rest of RW’s time in the dock, would be the same. I stopped taking notes at this point and just watched RW and noted how his responses were all very similar, his body language didn’t change, nor did his facial expression. Neutral all day. Not once did he give a straight answer; Not once did he back-up his witness statements with evidence; Not once did he manage to avoid getting himself into more and more trouble as he constantly avoided the issues as presented to him; Not once did he score any points against JG/TK/us; Not once did JG fail to hit the mark. As someone remarked last week (apols, I can’t remember whom): If it had been a boxing match the referee would have stopped it in the first round. I honestly couldn’t believe what I was watching. How this ever got to court on the basis of RW’s testimony so far is beyond me. Sorry but that’s what I think. I’ve just typed this up after a carp journey back to Cambridge which took almost 3.5hrs due to a major lorry crash on the A14 and half of town shut due to Guy Fawkes night - hence the bus home took twice as long as the train from Kings X. Haven’t even got me coat off Guvnor!!. Forgive me if its bitty, and I hope the content is as I remember it….. But. I hope most of all that I’ve conveyed the sense of sheer frustration that seemed to pervade the court room- real frustration that this case - seemingly based on absolutely nothing - has taken two years from us, and now we find ourselves in the RCJ for however long. If the Wempens had any real ammo they’d have fired it already during the opening exchanges, and I marvelled at how someone can have so little in their locker yet manage to get so far with it, it is truly a wonder of nature! JG is just brilliant, and the bloke you want on your side when its time to go into battle. If I remember anything else I’ll post it. Cheers. None of the above is legal advice, I am not qualified to give it. ============= reebar Monday 21:25 court... a headscratcher of a day once again. How anybody gave Rexy the right to say he has an MBA, is beyond me, even if he did pay thousands of dollars for it. I don't know exactly when he got it but I would bet it was shortly before he "walked" into Kurdistan. I suspect he was armed to the teeth with all sorts of esoteric business theories which got twisted round his entrepreneurial bent. This in turn led him into thinking the World was his for the taking. I had to smile when JG touched on his "chicken of the sea " venture into the Tuna game. It came to nothing more than three phone calls to producers. I can imagine the guy on the other end saying to people in the office " Where the hell is Kurdistan?". All a bit fishy if you ask me. Then there was the Sharia law bank which was going to require $50 million to set up in Qatar. No problem for our boy Rex, off he went on another tangent. Next was the Fuel supply idea with someone he claims to know. A housing construction company was touched on. All this and more, while at the same time trying his hand in the oil game. When asked how he was going to finance his share with TKI he came up with the bright idea that he would start his own Investment Fund. When Eric told him he would have to start small, he disagreed. He seemed to think it would be easy if he had a "deal" to offer the public or banks. JG ridiculed him , at his naivety and had him squirming at times. It is not a pretty sight watching a razor sharp mind shearing a sheep. There was lots of "eye rolling, eyebrow raising and slight shaking of heads" as per usual with a "gasp" as an encore. All this is from memory, so if I got anything wrong feel free to correct me. On another note, when big Rex is sitting at a certain angle he is a dead ringer for Marlon Brando when he played Colonel Walter E Kurtz in Apocalypse Now. He was also Special Forces. His last words were "The horror....The horror". ========== Re: No Case Submissions sicilian_kan sicilian_kan For anyone interested in knowing the law on submissions of no case to answer, which no doubt some iii posters will ask about when we get towards the close of Excalibur's case, I can recommend reading paragraph 32.1.6 of the White Book (the leading civil procedure book). This can be found at: Move to the third result found in that book from that link and then go back one page to start the paragraph. The relevant pages are 963-966. In particular, have a look at the top of page 964. WisdomSeeker, yes a court does have the power to strike out a claim (or any severable part of it) of its own volition. ((n. 1. The act or an instance of making a conscious choice or decision. 2. A conscious choice or decision. 3. The power or faculty of choosing; the will.)) This can be done at any stage even after trial or the start of the trial. The authorities for this are: National Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland (Application to Strike Out) [2006] EWHC 2959 (Comm) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2006/2959.html Summers v Fairclough Homes Ltd [2012] UKSC 26 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/26.html However, such powers are only to be used in exceptional circumstances. Reading both these cases will give you a better understanding as to what is exceptional. You will see that in the Berezovsky judgment passed by Mrs Justice Gloster, the case went to full trial despite some very strong observations being made against Berezovksy's evidence when passing judgment. Also, one thing to bear in mind is that for force majeure, the burden of proof in establishing it rests on the party relying upon force majeure (i.e. TKI and possibly GKP). It would be most unusual (though not impossible) for a breach of collaboration agreement claim to be struck out when the party on whom the burden of proof lies has not yet given evidence. It would be theorecitally possible to establish this where the claimant's evidence itself proved a force majeure or a breach of the collaboration agreement ensuring that TKI was not obliged to include Excalibur as a participant in the PSC. I am expecting the case to go the full length (though nothing is 100% certain). Of course there may be inter trial settlement, Excalibur may give up, or there may be a no case submission or a decision of the court on its own volition etc., but nothing that we have seen so far can show that shortened proceedings are likely. To me it is just a matter of waiting for the outcome (which I hope will be positive) and then any takeover thereafter. In summary, you will see that no case submissions are difficult to mount. A claimant will win if they can show that they have advanced "a prima facie case to answer" or "a scintilla((1. A minute amount; an iota or trace. 1. A minute amount; an iota or trace. -)) of evidence in support of the inference for which they contend, sufficient to call for an explanation from the defendant?". That it may be a weak case and unlikely to succeed is insufficient for a no case submission to win. In addition, you will see from the passage of the White Book further down on page 964 that the general rule is for a court not to allow a defendant to make a no case submission without requiring the defendant to elect to call no evidence thereafter. In other words, if you make a no case submission, you cannot then call TK and all the other GKP evidence. This makes it a very high risk and rarely used strategy. Further discussion as to when the general rule might be suspended then follows. It is worth reading the whole of pages 963-6. =========== Re: A PLEA FROM EXSOL IN IRAQ My son is a congenital Paraplegic who supports Chelsea and trying to win a trip. I'm currently working in Southern Iraq, and trying to drum up support for him whilst i'm working away If you could please vote for him, hopefully make his dream come true it would be really appreciated, and I will buy a few beers at the T/O party Lol. Just hit the link, follow instruction,press the vote now button, you will get a Conf: E mail sent to you, just hit that link and it confirms the vote. You will see my sons Pic with some fans in a wheelchair. Many thank's & Shukran ---- Stradale Hi Neal Vote done. To think almost two years since Ewen did the Manchester presentation at the Lowry in Manchester. Please bear in mind, and I will Skype you if it comes to pass but if Chelsea get to play Barcelona and you plan on taking the young fella to the game. We will set something up. My son is a First Officer with Ryanair, based in Barcelona. He has a two bed apartment down by the Marina. and getting up to the stadium is straight forward. He went up to the pre- season Real Madrid game and saw the first leg Celtic match a couple of weeks ago. "Unique atmosphere" If your son hasnt been to Camp Nou and a Barca v Chelsea fixture came off it would be a privelege to go with you to the game. You would be more than welcome to stay for a couple of days. Keep safe my friend and keep in touch, Shouldnt you be moving North, with the IOC's. Good luck with the votes. Best wishes Gavin (sorry for O/T folks) =========== proper bo is that Tuesday 23:03 bobobob5 Quite frankly, I don't know where to start. I have 22 A4 pages of notes from today. So, let's start at the very beginning, a very good place to start. Up pops the Excalibur barrister, with a complaint to the Judge (though it wasn't a complaint - because black is white, don't you know?) about expert witness statements. He didn't like the way that they were continuing to arrive. He wanted to have a discussion with the Judge about it, some time later in the week. But the GKP barrister didn't see the point, since the Judge had not yet read the expert evidence, so how could it make any difference if more of it had turned up? And an expert report received yesterday by Clifford Chance was actually a report on Mr. Wempen's earlier evidence. The Judge was having none of it. But the Excalibur barrister came back. seeking the Judge to agree a timetable to discuss the issue of the expert evidence. The Judge slapped him down; the Excalibur barrister kind of troed to reply with some half-hearted comment and the Judge said "We'll see how we go". And the day's business began. Judge 2, Excalibur Barrister 0 (yellow card ======= FiFiGiGi Date posted 7th Nov/ 12 today 22:25 Court report part I Evening all : My first trip to court didn’t disappoint. I don’t know this part of London well, but it was a nice blend of modern and old. Not many in the cheap seats today, but it was very nice to see old mates and put a few more faces to names. Description of the environment has been well and accurately documented, so I won’t go further into that. This post represents my interpretation of my notes of the case. There is some paraphrasing, and there will be some omissions and gaps. Happy to be corrected by any others present. Some names may be misspelled. JG was obviously carrying on from the previous day and for each section there was reference to pertinent documents, be it emails or the statements given by RW and TK. JG How did you plan to finance this? RW TK has funds available and Excalibur will raise capital through private investors. I was ready, willing and able to pay my share and had plans. JG I suggest you had your own reasons for not wanting Excalibur to be on the PSC. He referred to an email in June 2007 to Paul Behrens in which RW said he wanted the deal done, if at all possible, under the radar. Baghdad had not approved the Kurdish deals. JG You wanted to keep your options open in Southern Iraq? RW I wanted to be discreet – a standard in negotiations JG Why? RW For the same reasons as other groups. CIA were involved in the Hunt deal. JG The Hunt deal hadn’t happened yet. Why did you want to keep your name out of it. RW It wouldn’t be proper to publicly pursue confidential negotiations. JG We’re talking about deals, not negotiations. ‘Signing the PSC’ implied a done deal. RW Their deal was done under the radar. JG Please don’t be slippery! (He asked why again) RW Confidential negotiations. JG They were not negotiations. The deal was done. You are deliberately and dishonestly not answering the question. I will put this forward at the end of the trial. RW Deals with the KRG are sensitive. JG But you knew a press release would be issued by the parties? RW Yes. I did want Excalibur’s name on the PSC. It would simplify fundraising. Moving to 7th November 2007 Rex emailed a friend Glen Carey who was a Bloomberg reporter. Subject ‘Done deal –I need a drink’. GC said ‘I wrote a story on your oil deal’. RW wrote ‘You better not have’. JG He had something on you, didn’t he? RW He had interviewed Todd and knew I did sensitive contracting work for the US Govt. If he just mentioned me and Excalibur that was OK. JG So what about ‘You better not have? RW It was more proper to mention TK and Gulf. JG So you were saying ‘please don’t give me the credit’? RW Not exactly. Gulf was the operator and Excalibur was just the supporting role. We are co-investors in the Keystone deal. JG You and Excalibur didn’t want publicity? RW We very much wanted publicity. We played a powerful supporting role. The KRG didn’t give Gulf enough credit and referred to it as ‘The MOL deal’. JG You sent him a press release so there was no danger of a misunderstanding. What is this REALLY about? Not a sudden attack of modesty was it? JG continued to probe why RW wanted his name kept out of it for several minutes. RW couldn’t recall, said there was no particular reason, that he was attempting to let TK take the lead…. RW said he didn’t care whether the Excalibur name was on the PSC. Then JG said ‘You are not being frank with the court’. We will explore other reasons. Were you sensitive about your criminal record? RW I don’t have a criminal record. Well, I was arrested in high school for climbing a radar tower… I had top secret clearance. JG You have one more chance. You are under oath. Judge : Have you ever been convicted in a court? There was an email from Eric to Rex in 2003 referring to a disturbance of the peace (in Santa Monica, I believe) RW said it was a misdemeanour, not a felony. But he was convicted of a crime. JG said ‘how could you forget?’ RW considered it just high jinx and wasn’t concerned. Then JG asked if he was concerned about the circumstances of his discharge from the army. RW : No, I resigned voluntarily. JG referred to previously shown documents. This was a bit complicated, but I understand that RW received an unfavourable army officer report which RW said was a false accusation . He was accused of being in an off limits area with nightclubs. Article 15 was mentioned. This was described as a military process for handling misdemeanours. The reason for his discharge was censored. RW had emailed Eric saying they needed to get his records ‘sealed’, but that was ‘Jackson’s job’. The judge intervened to ask what he meant by getting his records sealed. RW said he didn’t want to have to explain Article 15 to prospective employers. Judge kept asking what ‘sealed’ meant. RW waffled and said the Santa Monica incident was a ‘slap on the wrist’. RW eventually said he thought it meant employers can’t see the record. A person called Latin was mentioned. JG asked who Jackson and Latin were and he said they were attorneys. There was also a mention of his ‘honourable discharge’ from the reserves in 2002, but this was following an investigation into fraudulently forged signatures on the discharge, which JG suggested led to the termination of his Reserves career. JG : It would be nice if you would give a truthful answer. RW agreed that it didn’t look good but said the decision to leave was his and he left voluntarily. He was fed up of the situation. JG Was your chequered career the reason for not wanting your name on the PSC? RW No JG Then why didn’t you want to be named? Tell us the REAL reason. You were panicked? RW No, not panicked. The discussion then revolved around whether RW was concerned about his top secret security clearance. Was there a conflict in working on commercial and classified projects? RW Not sure I was actually working on classified projects in 2007. The next section focussed on an email exchange between RW and Eric where RW was saying he wanted protection if the agreement came under international scrutiny. JG suggested his security clearance may be jeopardised if the tide changed and the PSCs were seen as politically undesirable. RW said he was nervous as he’d just been cut out of the deal and was having some reservations about the entire activity. Worried he wouldn’t receive any monies, and trying to settle the dispute with Gulf. Concerned that the PSCs from which the monies were derived should be seen as legitimate activities, and if Gulf had done anything ‘improper’. JG Was this another reason Excalibur might not want to appear on PSC, given the situation in Kurdistan was so volatile? RW I don’t see why this would be an issue. RW emailed Eric on 25th November 2007, after the PSCs had been signed) forwarding an article mentioning that Baker’s (?) role in the Hunt deal had annoyed the US Govt and the Iraqis. There was hostility within the US Govt to signature of the PSCs with the KRG. The article said the agreement could have no legal standing. JG You knew the US Govt would frown on the PSCs. This is why you wanted the deal done ‘under the radar’. RW I wanted to keep it confidential and was aware of the complications, however, this didn’t outweigh getting the deal of a lifetime. I couldn’t conceal it from the US Govt. The next part revolved around ‘parallel’ routes via lobbying by certain people to Barzani. There was a ‘packet’ that was to be hand-delivered to Barzani by Keith Schuette. This was delivered by RW to KS at his yacht at a dockside location. JG asked what was in the packet and why did it have to be delivered by hand. RW said it was a presentation which was too big to email. Who wrote it? ‘I believe I did’. RW didn’t remember if there was a covering letter. He was trying to speed up proceedings by using ‘friends in Washington’. Bringing it to the forefront of Barzani’s mind. JG suggested that the idea of lobbying was to get US politicians involved who looked favourably on Kurdistan. Then there was mention that it was a one page letter with no attachments and that it was a detailed counter offer to the one made by Dr. Ashti. Then there was talk of supporting documents. JG said it was clumsy and misguided and that it did no good. RW It was not clumsy and misguided and lobbying happens every day. JG : Dr Ashti has said that Excalibur was guilty of serious misdemeanours. RW : He’s entitled to say what he wishes to say. I don’t know what he was referring to. We now jump to November 2007. An email from Eric to RW after they had been cut out of the deal.: ‘chances are they won’t strike oil anyway’. The email referred to ‘every conversation will come up’ and mentioning TK cheating on his wife, and ‘payoffs to Barzani’. JG suggested this amounted to blackmailing TK and his wife regarding his infidelity. RW said they were angry they had been cut out of the deal of a lifetime. JG : How would you characterise this if not blackmail? RW : We were angry. JG (Exasperated) Yes, let’s assume that. Why is this not blackmail? RW : Eric was having a stream of consciousness moment, but we didn’t do it. (I loved this bit!!!) JG : Were there payoffs to Barzani? RW : This was Eric being creative. JG : Are you suggesting that my client was involved in a payoff? What were the payoffs you had in mind? RW : We didn’t have any payoffs in mind, though we could accuse TK of this. JG: So you were considering putting a gross libel into circulation? RW : View it in the context that TK had just cut us out of the deal. I didn’t know we’d end up in this situation. Nothing was done about it. Judge : So there were never any payoffs to Barzani? RW : No. Some things were clearly inappropriate but we never did anything inappropriate. JG : So there were no payoffs to Barzani? RW : No. ============= ' I went for lunch and a few beers with Fruit & Veg on Sunday ' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JEALOUS, Axo! Thanks for your insight. And, too, for all those who have expressed an opinion. Have been rather busy lately, but I try to read every post to give me all the viewpoints, however 'left' or 'right' wing. I like a post that makes me THINK. Whether I agree with it or not. Out of the country on Thursday and Friday, so will be difficult to follow, but wishing us all the best of luck, even traders who are trying to make a few pennies to pay the bills or pay for a couple of days' holiday. Whilst it scares me to death, holding shares in Gulf Keystone Petroleum has been an amazing education. I have learned so much, and made some very good friends. I may not come out of it with as much as I had hoped, but some things are worth more than money. Even if I break even, it will have been worth it. At least I hope to make enough to pay for a new garage roof..... --- Oct28th/ 12 Forget the dross and the ratings - here are the latest musings from our Dennis on FB regarding Excalibur. He has given me permission to re-post. GLA! FiFi 'As certain posters are already attempting to utilize the approaching trial date as a means for rattling investor confidence, the following discussion utilizing principles of law that are likely to be argued before the court would seem to be appropriate. Keep in mind these are legal principles defendants would likely raise in a court action in the U.S., but which I believe are likely to be just as viable in a UK judicial proceeding. Indeed, Judge Klostner referenced many of these principles in her written opinion. 1. To participate in a PSC contract, Excalibur had to satisfy specific KRG statutory requirements; namely, that it had the professional and technical experience, capacity and financial resources to meaningfully participate in the subject drilling operation. 2. Excalibur, a small security firm operating in Iraq, had (and has) no background or expertise in the oil and gas business, no prior history of engaging in oil or gas drilling activity, and has never demonstrated its ability to assume its share of costs needed to participate in a potentially costly and risky drilling venture in Kurdistan. 3. In this regard, Judge Klostner noted that our attorneys proffered the following: "Excalibur could never have qualified to be a party to any PSC, as it did not satisfy the relevant statutory criteria, and there was no realistic prospect that it would be approved by the KRG to carry out petroleum operations in Iraqi Kurdistan, or that it would be accepted as a party to a PSC." 4. In short, Excalibur was statutorily precluded from being a party to the PSC contract; hence, its claim to a 30% interest (or for that matter any interest) under a contract to which it is not a party is completely groundless, totally lacking in legal merit, and should be dismissed as a matter of law. 5. This conclusion is reinforced by Excalibur's own decision to sit on the KRG determination of statutory preclusion. Excalibur never challenged that conclusion orally or in writing, and most significantly chose not to appeal the determination as it could and should have in a timely manner before the KRG Ministry for Natural Resources. 6. Such can be reasonably construed as raising a "rebuttable presumption" the court will accept, that Excalibur itself concluded it was statutorily precluded. 7. Rebuttable presumptions are created for a number of reasons: (a) policy, (b) fairness, and (c) probability. In application to the present case, it can be reasonably argued that: 1) as a matter of POLICY, litigants should not be allowed to sit on its rights for years before bringing a court action that should have been obviated ((To anticipate and dispose of effectively)) by taking a timely administrative appeal; 2) it would be UNFAIR to defendants for Excalibur to have intentionally "played the judicial process," allowing damages to massively aggregate before it decided to raise its claim; and, 3) there is a high PROBABILITY that Excalibur knew the preclusion applied, that it was statutorily precluded from being a party to the contract, and for this reason chose not to contest the KRG determination. http://www.lexisnexis.com/lawschool/study/outlines/html/evid/evid05.htm It is well settled that Excalibur's failure to "exhaust its administrative remedy" may also be invoked as a reason to dismiss the lawsuit: "The exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine requires that procedures established by statute, Common Law, contract, or custom must be initiated and followed in certain cases before an aggrieved party may seek relief from the courts. After all other available remedies have been exhausted, a lawsuit may be filed." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Exhaustion+of+Remedies 8. If a rebuttable presumption applies, as I think it should, the burden will be on Excalibur to disprove the presumption; it is also possible that an "irrebuttable presumption" may apply in this case given the egregious nature of Excalibur's delay in contesting the action and its deliberate intent to wait until purported damages (30% interest) massively accumulated to the extreme prejudice of the defendants before raising its claim. (An attorney would have to research the foregoing "irrefutable presumption issue.") 9. "A plaintiff can't sit back and allow massive damages to build up. There is an ongoing duty to mitigate damages which is defined as doing those tasks reasonably necessary to minimize the harm caused by the defendant’s breach.” http://www.stimmel-law.com/articles/contracts.html 10. Indeed Excalibur's delay tactics were obviously intended to "play the judicial process" to its own advantage by deliberately ignoring its own legal obligations: (a) to seek timely review of the underlying KRG decision it now argues it was injured by, and (b) to mitigate damages. As a result, the judge may conclude that Excalibur’s conduct has been so egregiously in violation of its legal responsibilites both to the defendants and to the court, that it, the court, will now "equitably estop" Excalibur from going to trial on the merits. 11. In this regard, the case could be dismissed on the grounds of: 1) Laches -- where a plaintiff has deliberately and unreasonably delayed seeking judicial review to the extreme prejudice of the defendant and to capitalize on its own delay for the maximization of damages -- a legal right or claim will not be enforced or allowed if a long delay in asserting the right or claim has prejudiced the adverse party as a sort of "legal ambush." See generally: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1097; A judge may also dismiss this action on the basis that Excalibur has "unclean hands," that it has employed the judicial process in an unsavory manner to "set up" defendants for a maximization of damages that would not have happened without Excalibur’s deliberate intent and planning; and/or that, in light of the egregious delay in seeking redress, to grant relief now would result in an "unconscionable contract," an agreement so one-sided that it is unfair to the defendant. 12. The foregoing aside, it must be emphasized that the strength of our defense is that, by statute itself, Excalibur is precluded from being a party to a PSC because it did not satisfy the statutory criteria needed to be a party. To get beyond the purview of this statutory preclusion, Excalibur would have to transmogrify itself into something it was not into something it wishes it could have been. Namely: Excalibur would have to prove through convincing evidence that, at the time it was under consideration by the KRG as a party to the contract, Excalibur was not what it knows very well it actually is and was -- a very small, financially plagued, Iraqi security firm, of possibly ill repute, with absolutely no experience in the oil and gas business. No set of facts presented, or likely to be presented, can change Excalibur from the moth it really is and was into the Cinderella it needed to be to satisfy the statutory requirements. For this reason alone, Excalibur’s case should be dismissed as a matter of law. 13. It is well settled that a court will construe a statute so that it carries out its legislative intent. In this regard, the KRG, itself, drafted the statutory preclusion in question and hence the KRG will be given judicial deference that it, the KRG, knew how the statute was to be applied vis-a-vis Excalibur. That the KRG categorically concluded the statutory preclusion applied to Excalibur is not a determination the court will overturn. This was the KRG's call and determination. Excalibur knew this, did not contest this, and will now have to live with the consequences of sitting on its legal obligations to seek timely administrative and/or judicial review and to mitigate damages. 14. A judge will not re-write a contract. "Except under unusual circumstances, a court will NOT substitute its judgment for those of the parties and “write in” critical clauses The parties are free to contract or not to contract and this freedom to contract is not lightly abridged or taken over by the court." See generally: See, generally: http://www.stimmel-law.com/articles/contracts.html The weakness of Excalibur's contractual claim against GKP is overwhelming under the principles of law discussed, a discussion in which I have chosen to eliminate other compelling arguments our attorneys can employ on our behalf. Judge Klostner intimated at the weakness of Excalibur's case with very good reason. I see no reason to lose sleep over this matter.' Night all. FiFi End of part II ============= Last one for tonight. Sleep well everyone. I think our court case is in good hands. How JG retains all that information I simply don't know. Seems like he has a photographic memory! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The next bit was a bit complicated (are you paying attention??) but it involves an email exchange between RW and Eric. RW to EW: Things are not working out re settlement in Kurdistan. Contact Azzat and ask for 30% (share under the CA) back in exchange for giving them 50% of what we finance. JG So they become 50/50 partners with you? RW : That was my thought at the time. JG : ‘Or I could offer the 50% to Barzani for getting it back’. RW: That was obviously a joke! JG : JOKE?? Was this the Prime Minister? RW : Could have been. JG : Could it have been anybody but the PM or President? RW: I’m not disputing the fact that it was inappropriate. JG : You’re suggesting to Eric that as you don’t have another deal, you are offering 50% to Barzani? RW: It was sarcastic and it was a joke. JG: I don’t accept this. You had the delusion you could buy off Barzani as if you were in a 5th rate banana republic. RW : That is preposterous. May 25th 2007 Update email to Amir Markov. JG : Who is Amir Markov? RW: A former investment banker and family friend. JG : There was nothing to report on financing front at this state. Were you looking for a job? Asking to be taken in house? RW : Looking for other options/opportunities. JG : Your confidence was somewhat low? Getting a job rather than being an entrepreneur. RW : Certainly from time to time and yes, at this stage. Email from TW to Paul Behrends. June 2007 Plane tickets on hold. Dabin not helping. Need to get more support. You’re friends with Talabani’s son. Best to go straight to him. JG : You said you had interest in funding from several quarters. That was an exaggeration. You had no real or current interest. RW : We had interest if we had a deal. JG : Halpert? Jabalana? Franchie (if we consider him an outsider)? RW : I can’t remember the names of any others. JG: Who offered concrete support? Halpert? RW: If we brought a deal to the table, people would be interested. JG: WHO?? Did you have concrete interest from Halpert? RW: Halpert was interested sometime in April 2007. JG: Anybody else? RW : JB Jabalana. JG : No concrete expression of interest from Deutsche or anyone else? RW: No. ============ Part IV (th Nov/12) This is the last but one 'snippet'. Hope to finish it off before I go out at 7, otherwise it'll be tomorrow morning. FiFi ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Email from RW ‘Excalibur Ventures is a special purpose vehicle backed by international investors’ JG : That’s not true is it? Is it a euphemism? RW : I was being positive. And it was my own point of view. JG : In July 2007 you revised the Thames Chesapeake terms sheet to include a biography of TK. Was this in the hopes it might help? The conversation revolved around the fact that a new sentence had been added which said something along the lines that the fund was led by entities with global experience in the oil business and fundraising for large projects. Rex believed this to be true as TK brought something to the table that wasn’t there before. There was an issue between TK and RW as to whether he joined Thames Chesapeake. JG said TK didn’t promise to set up RW’s fund. RW said that TK agreed to join as it would be beneficial to him. JG : You had so far raised no money. RW : TK knew we had to raise money. (Sorry I don’t know what Thames Chesapeake is, or what the relevance is.- F) 21st June RAK deal collapsed. Email from RW to Dabin proposing that Dabin write another letter (Ali Al Q’abandi was mentioned here but not sure in what context) JG : Was it a proposal that Texas enter into a separate agreement with Dabin? RW : Yes, but in the context that Azzat asked in March, not just for 10% of Excalibur’s share, but 10% of the whole deal. I had no objections. I needed Dabin’s help. Todd and Ali were in agreement. JG : Excalibur would benefit too? RW : Yes. Email from RW to Eric. The block is going to international bid. So Todd got on a plane. JG suggested that RW requested to go too; he was not invited along. RW: Dabin asked us to come. I didn’t just tag along. JG : Had Dabin lost confidence? You didn’t pay for your plane ticket, did you? RW : I don’t recall, perhaps Gulf did. JG : The key negotiations were with Dr. Ashti. You didn’t play a part in these face to face negotiation. RW : I was there to support in any way I could. JG: The best way was for TK and Dr. Ashti to sit down WITHOUT YOU? RW: I wanted a private meeting. JG : It was always envisaged that this crucial meeting would be without you. RW : I didn’t think I’d be able to add anything. I wanted Todd, as expert, to hash it out and get it done. JG: You don’t know why you were there, do you? RW: I was there for support. I worked on the plan. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There was then a discussion about meetings which took place between TK/David McTich (sp?) and Dr. Ashti and Izzedine Barwari which took place during that visit. RW’s account of how many meetings, locations and timing of the meetings was different from TK’s. RW had to leave in a hurry as he had news from his brother that his mother had been diagnosed with a terminal illness. JG suggested his memory may be impaired because of this shock. RW said that no, not about this issue, as it was in one day, the most amazing news and the worst news. RW said that Todd came back from a meeting saying that the deal was done. They had celebratory drinks . However, JG said that TK was disappointed because Ashti said he couldn’t have three blocks. Only two per person. RW kept insisting that TK was happy because he’d been successful. JG : Which blocks? RW : I didn’t ask. JG: You didn’t ask? Your account is completely inaccurate. He had an email of Mr. McTich’s contemporaneous account of the date of the meeting with the minister, where they gave a brief presentation. He was impressed with the quality of the presentation. ‘We are firmly in the running for an interest in one block, maybe.’ He said it would be inconceivable that Mr. M didn’t mention success to his colleagues. RW : David was happy with the way things were going. JG : That’s different from the deal being done. Your recollection is seriously awry. There were no congratulatory drinks as the contract hadn’t been awarded. Were you in no doubt that the deal had been done? RW: None. JG: Then why did you write an email 2/3 days later asking ‘Did we get it?’ RW : I meant ‘did we get it signed?’ I think I meant that. JG : But it wasn’t a PSC. You didn’t even ask which blocks. RW : It was a decisive breakthrough. JG : Are you changing your evidence? You wouldn’t have forgotten an agreement to award PSCs even in your distress. You sent a misleading email to Mr. Kinnear saying you had won in Kurdistan. RW : I certainly thought we had. Back to the Witness Statements: JG : Are you implying here that Todd and Dabin were going to steal the deal in your absence? RW : Yes, that is the implication. JG : What happened during the rest of the visit? RW : I can’t say. JG : There was a meeting at the ministry with TK and Dabin. You were leaving negotiations regarding the split to TK. Were you in a fragile state of mind? RW : I was distraught.((1. Deeply agitated, as from emotional conflict. )) JG : This was a serious business conversation. RW : That’s why I left it in TK’s hands, to be on the PSC or not. The minister was not worried about the US flag any more; whether Gulf or Texas led. It didn’t matter. JG : You didn’t say it doesn’t matter if we’re on or off the PSC. Your recollection is confused as to whether Excalibur is on the PSC. You don’t really recollect that, do you? TK says that conversation didn’t take place. It was not raised previously or subsequently. RW : It wouldn’t have been the first time this came up. JG : In an informal conversation? RW : On a business trip. JG : You weren’t seeking to change the legal position were you? RW : No. Then JG continued under the assumption that the conversation HAD actually taken place. RW asserted that TK said : “Don’t worry, I won’t screw you over in Kurdistan”. JG : so TK was proceeding on the assumption you’d be good for the money. Moving on to a letter from TK on Gulf Keystone headed paper to Ashti Hawrami, copy of which had been forwarded to RW, who said he didn’t recall it. It was a letter from TK to Dr. H thanking him for his time and enclosing a draft contact with the figures agreed at the recent meeting, for Block K5. Dr. H had phoned TK on 19th July when he was in Zurich and said he’d have to choose a block. ‘I said I’d choose Shaikan’. JG : Did you find this baffling as you thought the deal was already done? This was an over-optimistic notion. You didn’t tell TK that you’d find it difficult to raise the money. RW: I didn’t think we would! Small gap in my notes here. RW : I’m not familiar with all of our pleadings. JG : What’s the factual basis, or would you rather not say? RW : I’d rather not say. ============ -- Part V Afternoon all. Here is the final part of my court report. Thanks to risklovers for casting a keen pair of eyes over my lengthy script. Off out now, but I intend to put some thoughts down on paper later today, as everything I have written so far is just a transcript of my notes. At the very end, there was brief discussion between the Judge and JG as how long it was taking. JG said : "I hope to finish next week, but not comfortably. I'm more than half way through." I'm unsure as to whether this applied just to Rex, or to Eric also. All usual caveats apply. Laterssssssssssss. FiFi ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JG : In July 2007 TK told you Dr. A wanted to bring a bigger player in – MOL of Hungary - and you had no objection. RW : No, if it led to a successful conclusion. JG : Dr. A was applying his mind to the contracting parties to the PSC. RW then said he had no knowledge of a meeting at the end of July/beginning August between TK and Dr. A in the Lanesborough Hotel in London, during which Dr. A told TK that Excalibur were not acceptable. TK had apparently told RW about the meeting. RW : I have no idea whether that meeting happened or not. JG : TK told you. RW : No he did not. JG : Robert Kozel was a witness. I’m surprised, as your reply says that at some point Excalibur became aware it wasn’t going to become a party to the Shaikan PSC. (Ian Patrick was mentioned in this part, but I don’t recall in what context.) RW stopped receiving PSCs with Excalibur’s name on it. When did Excalibur become aware of this? RW : I don’t know, it was a difficult time. JG : Roughly? RW : Probably in August/September, perhaps earlier. I can’t put a specific date on it. JG pressed for a date. RW : Certainly by the time I was in receipt of the email from TK, before 12th September. (Transferring Texas to Gulf. Took that as notification.) JG: What happened to lead you to be aware you were’t going to be a party to the PSC? RW : I believe we spoke on the phone a few times. JG : How did you become aware? RW : I don’t remember the Lanesborough meeting. I would have taken action. I would have been shocked. JG : But you said it wouldn’t have mattered as you would have had interest in another way. How did you learn you’d been excluded? RW : I can’t say how. JG : I suggest if Excalibur were on the PSC it wouldn’t have succeeded. RW : I don’t agree. JG : You became aware Excalibur were excluded from the PSC but can’t remember how? An internal email dated 2nd August from David McTich attaching 6 documents was referred to, excluding Excalibur as per Todd’s advice. JG : TK had a conversation with Dr. A which he told you about. RW : No comment. I would have been surprised if Dabin had requested we come off it. JG : If Dabin knew of Dr. A’s feelings, it all rather fits together. JG : You complained that Todd had said Excalibur needed to be on the PSC to be entitled to its interest in Shaikan. RW : I had full confidence that TK should have told me if we were removed. He didn’t say about Dr. A not liking me. JG : TK should have told you if you needed to be on the PSC. RW : It was our intent to pay our way whether we were on the PSC or not. JG : TK was going to give you a chance to participate as if you were on the PSC RW : Believe TK thought we were all in the consortium . “Something’s been left out here “. He didn’t give us that chance. JG : What about consent from the KRG? RW : The KRG were unlikely to change their minds willy nilly. JG : And MOL? You complained MOL’s consent would’ve been necessary. Why? RW : MOL only knew what TK had told them, and this wasn’t going to be positive. JG : You needed MOL’s consent for Excalibur to be party to the PSC. RW : I’m not sure we needed MOL’s agreement. JG : Of course you would, Mr. Wempen!! You would never have got onto the original PSC without MOL’s agreement. RW : I don’t agree. JG : Why are you resisting this obvious point? (asks question again.) RW : Certainly all parties would have to agree. Yes. There is a difference between named parties to a PSC and a consortium. JG : The CA couldn’t protect you. Judge : I’m puzzled. You say in July there was a conversation where you say it doesn’t matter who’s on the PSC. I want to understand…. In July and August you had been in discussions about a PSC which includes Excalibur. RW : I attempted to get the PSC to the Minister for signature (something about delays due to someone being involved in a car accident). I assisted in getting the PSC which excluded Excalibur to the Minister. Judge : Your statement says it INCLUDED Excalibur. RW : It was sometimes included and sometimes excluded. I didn’t see a problem with that. RE : Deceit claim JG : Assuming the Lanesborough Hotel meeting took place as TK said and that the content was that Dr. A expressed disapproval, and assuming that TK didn’t pass that information on to you. You have authorised the claim for deceit? RW : Yes. JG : What was the deceit? RW : I don’t think the meeting took place. I would’ve expected TK to tell me. JG : How were you deceived? RW : I will leave that to better legal minds than my own. JG : So, you brought a deceit claim and cannot now explain it? RW : Yes JG : One more chance to explain. RW : I must refer to counsel. JG : This is a factual matter and not a legal matter. You must be able to explain now. RW : I believe I was always part of the consortium and at some point a decision was made to cut me out and I wasn’t made aware in advance. JG : That’s not the deceit Excalibur is alleging. RW : I have failed to describe the deceit around the Lanesborough meeting. I must refer to counsel. JG refers to the witness statement : ‘If Todd had told me about his conversation with Dr. A I would have found this very surprising.’ JG : Suppose TK said – dishonestly- that the KRG said that Excalibur can be on the PSC. How would you have acted differently if the deceit had not been made? We need to remember what the representation of deceit is. The allegation is complex and must be simplified.. RW : I don’t see how it would’ve affected my behaviour. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RW : If Todd had told me, I would have been surprised and would have discussed the implications with him. JG : You said you didn’t want to be on the PSC so I suggest anything said by Dr. A would be of no consequence, as you didn’t care either way. RW : I would have been concerned at the Minister’s disapproval and try to find out why. JG : You could have simply followed the indirect route. RW : If I’d though TK was telling the Minister he didn’t want me and ……. didn’t have a financial interest. JG : If your interests were protected. RW : I would want to protect my reputation. I feel I’m being dragged down a path here……. JG : (Instant rejoinder) It’s a path of your choosing. It’s YOUR witness statement. RW : Open opposition would have greatly concerned me. JG : You could have gone down a different route. RW : The plea of deceit is not in this bit. JG : The plea of deceit is serious. RW : I have full confidence in my legal team. JG : Are you saying you are unaware of any deceit? You can’t tell the Judge what your representation is? RW: The question arises because of the assertion that the meeting took place. I don’t believe it took place. Yes, I authorised the deceit charge and stand behind it. JG: How? All your evidence goes to undermine it. RW : I stand by my plea. JG : Do you understand the expression ‘playing the man, not the ball’? RW : Yes. JG : Half way through the paragraph, you change your plea. It is now a different hypothesis. TK had an inkling that he thought Excalibur couldn’t participate. You would have to try to persuade TK to safeguard Excalibur’s interest in advance of the PSC. RW : Whether Excalibur was on the PSC or not, if Dr. A had said Excalibur can’t be on the PSC, or the consortium at all, I would have taken immediate action. If we thought there had been a problem with our names not being on the agreement, we would have said. It was discussed at the beginning that we would all be in. JG : Your attempted intervention with Barzani resulted in him saying Excalibur were involved in ‘serious non-transparent practices’. It was up to Excalibur to make itself acceptable to the KRG with funding and experienced management. RW : Our team was fine as it was. JG : Certainly Prime thought so. JG : What would you have said if you were going to try to see Dr. A directly? RW : I’d have asked him if there were an issue and how it could be resolved. (Reference was made to the email from Dr. Ashti in October of this year) RW : I would have instructed my lawyer as a last resort. JG : To do what? You didn’t have any money. You only had enough for Cadwallader and that was on a shoestring. You talked about not paying them as you didn’t have a letter of engagement. RW : That revolved around free advise up front, assuming it will pay off in the end. JG : What would you have instructed them to do? RW : Protect our interest. Now onto Kurdish Law JG : In August 2007 the KRG passed the Kurdistan Region Oil and Gas Law (“KROGL”). It was obvious that Excalibur didn’t comply with Article 24 regarding consortiums. Maybe it didn’t have to, but we’ll leave that to one side. RW : It didn’t need to. JG : Excalibur couldn’t comply with the financial requirements or the technical capabilities requirements including direct experience in carrying out similar projects. RW : That depends on your legal interpretations under Kurdistani law. Excalibur was perfectly able to participate. RW : It is wrong to look at Excalibur individually and not as part of a consortium. JG: Individually did it comply? RW : By itself, Excalibur was not in a position to singlehandedly acquire a PSC, but I don’t believe it was excluded on that count. JG : You can’t be serious saying that Excalibur could enter into a PSC individually. Did it have the financial capability? RW : Individually depends on your legal interpretation. Were we able to raise the money against the asset? Then yes, but we didn’t have $100m in the bank. In Dan Franchie, we had the technical knowledge. JG : In your witness statement you take a more realistic view. It has never had the technical knowledge or ability to carry out petroleum contracts. Which is correct, your verbal or your written statement? RW : My written statement. I'm back in the room. I'm happy to be able to contribute in some small way to the board which has given me so much education over the past couple of years. As well as a belly laugh or two along the way. A smattering of shorthand helped, Cal67, but the main reason I could write most of it down was simply that Rex took so long over his answers! And JG repeated some questions. But yes, my hand was aching at the end of the day..... I had a clear line of sight to Rex and JG. Rex was deadpan for most of the time, but he did (naturally) show a crack of emotion during the time he was talking about his mother's illness and death. Occasionally he asked for the question to be repeated, and took his time scanning the documents on the screen in front of him. This could be interpreted (oh, who am I sounding like now!?!) to mean he was buying time to think of a suitable answer. I felt I could hear his brain cogs turning. Only on a couple of occasions did I see him frown or make any facial expression at all. He didn't blush, but did appear to be uncomfortable when the questioning heated up. Todd was naturally paying rapt attention all the way through, and I caught sight of him smiling, and shaking his head on occasion in response to Rex's answers. JG was razor sharp all the way through. It just appeared to be an exceptionally tightly choreographed ballet, almost. You wondered where the questions were leading, then BAM, in for the kill. Particularly to do with the 'packet'. My own personal view is that there is plenty more rope to play out to Rex for him to condemn himself, both character-wise and business-wise. I can't see GKP pulling out. I'm sure Todd is absolutely confident he has enough evidence for Rex to incriminate himself. I plan on visiting again, but it probably won't be till after my son's 21st birthday party on 23rd November. I'm really determined to visit again when Todd is in the Hot Seat. If I think of anything else, I will let you all know. - Prime were mentioned in asides two or three times on Wednesday. Not sure but I think JG was being sarcastic as Prime didn't want to fund Excal..... ========== November 8, 2012, 3:00 p.m. ET . Iraq Says Exxon Seeks Bids on Oil-Field Stake . BY HASSAN HAFIDH BAGHDAD—U.S. energy company Exxon Mobil Corp. has asked interested oil companies to submit offers in December to buy its stake in a multibillion-dollar project in southern Iraq, Iraq’s deputy prime minister for energy affairs said Thursday. Exxon, which upset Baghdad by signing a deal last year to explore for oil in Iraq’s semiautonomous Kurdish region, has informed Iraq of its wish to sell its 60% stake in the West Qurna-1 project, Hussein al-Shahristani said in an interview. “Exxon has started negotiations with companies, and it has set December to receive bids from them,” Mr. Shahristani said. “We are expecting the ... Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM) withdrawal puts ‘boosting Iraq’s oil output plan’ in Danger By: Crystal Barker on Nov 08,2012 Posted in Business News ,Finance U.S. energy giant Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM) has recently initiated talks with other global oil companies to sell its share in Iraq’s West Qurna-1 oilfield located in southern Iraq, according to a senior Iraqi oil official. Abdul Mahdy al-Ameedi told media in Baghdad that the government has received a letter from Exxon Mobil (XOM) in which it said that it is holding talks with some parties, companies to withdraw from the project in West Qurna-1, which currently produces 400,000 barrels of crude every day. He added that Exxon seeks to sell its holding to one of the companies that were formerly pre-qualified by the oil ministry to takeover Iraqi oil and gas projects. With this removal, plans to increase Iraq’s oil output to between 5 million and 6 million barrels from a current level of 3.4 million barrels per day are now in danger. During the recent trading activity Exxon Mobil Corporation (NYSE:XOM) held volume of 19.40 million shares with 4.62 billion shares outstanding and 4.61 billion shares floated in market. P/E ratio of the company was 9.31 and in the past twelve months company scored revenue of $488.73 billion and had $44.33 billion in earnings. The stock gave a net profit margin of +9.64% whereas operating margin was +15.97%. Exxon Mobil kicked off the trading session at $90.24 and during the session slipped -3.14% and finally settled at $88.18. The latest dividend per share paid to stockholders in recent quarter, also known as div/yield was 2.59 for the firm. Beta value, the measure of stock’s risk in relation to its market or alternative benchmark was 0.51. The basic material sector firm’s top rivals include BP plc (ADR) (NYSE:BP) that fell -1.67% to $41.85 with the total traded volume of 12.37 million shares and Chevron Corporation (NYSE:CVX) that dropped -2.58% to $107.51 with the total traded volume of 7.63 million shares. XOM is ahead of its 52 weeks low with 21.59% and lagging behind from its 52 weeks high price with -5.86%. XOM’s last month’s stock price volatility remained 1.36%. The stock price of XOM is moving down from its 20 days moving average with -3.60% and remote negatively from 50 days moving average with -2.82%. ============ Court well worth the visit. a4tlo Hi all visited the court Wednesday & Thursday this week, after reading the great. Reports over the duration of the CC, I just felt I would have to visit. On the GKP side of the court I counted 15 strong this included GKP and their Council. I was shocked by the amount of files rolled into the court, I now fully understand why this case has taken so long to getting Court? On the Ex side There was less than half. It was also great to see JG in action this guy has the memory of a elephant, the amount of post it notes been passed around plus the beaming smiles on our legal teams faces. You could just tell how confident they are. Even TK had a huge smile. RW must have thought he was surrounded with the pressure put on him by. JG. And many times he asked or wanted to talk to his council, but it's not permitted as he has had that opportunity before the case started. RW appears to be rather relaxed,when attempting. To answer questions put to him, but on 99% on his replies. He tends to go off the subject I have only heard couple. Of direct. Answers. From RW. IMHO JG is firmly. Getting. A grip. Of RW. In the two days. RW Barrister. Only rose out of his chair once to question one of JG Questions. Which he sat back down making it worse looking for RW. Everything that comes out of RW mouth is the Collaboration. Agreement, Our Consortium. He trusted Todd. Etc. In my opinion Rex is going through the motions and it's as if he is brain washed, or even under hypnosis. Ex did not have the clout required to run a bath never mind a business. To hear EW email RW, I was shocked, Blackmail. And a step by step guide of how to and what detailed information to get from Todd, Create. A paper trail, get some documentation which names. EX on it, Rex. You set this deal up, otherwise. You will get Hosed, ask TK what your position is in the company, try to get it in writing about the offer of the interest. Free loan TK offered you. You need convincing documentary. Evidence, perhaps. A acknowledgement letter of interest, stating. That it was you that brought the deal. Rex approached many fund raising company's. And no one would fund him at all. He knew he was clutching at straws and in my opinion resorted to dirty tricks,but EW has been firing the. Bullets. RW just carrying out his brothers instructions? Rex was also caught red handed telling lies yet again. Like when he stated he had no criminal record. I also heard RW had also attempted to get his. Military. Record erased some refer to (Jackson would do it) There's so much more, underhanded going ons that I'm sure have been reported. I will go again. When work permits. Also I must state I am even more assured in my investment. After chatting to many fellow investors. And witnessing. This case that really should not be in the court. God help Eric. When he's X examined. RP is getting away with his answers, but Eric the. UBS Tax attorney well let's wait and see. Regards. A4 tlo =============== EDC=EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CANADA DSM Qualifications Strong knowledge of claims assessment methodologies and claim management tools for application to a wide variety of standard and non-standard claim situations and/or strong knowledge of debt restructuring norms, including standard documentation terms and conditions and Security (valuation, priority, inter-creditor relationships) • Working knowledge of legal issues related to debt management in various jurisdictions (domestic and international) and industry sectors, including: insolvency and bankruptcy laws, overarching commercial statutes and conventions (UCC=Uniform Commercial Code, PPSA=Personal Property Security Act (Canada), CISG=Convention on Contracts for International Sale of Goods (international trade; UN), INCO terms, etc.), contract and commercial laws (e.g. clear understanding of non-standard contracts and potential legal implications of specific clauses), litigation processes, and legal restructuring documentation ============= Gulf Keystone climbs on oil discovery The Aim-listed explorer is a favourite with retail investors. By Ben Martin 7:34PM GMT 08 Nov 2012 Comment Punters’ favourite Gulf Keystone Petroleum was in demand on the back of fresh news from Kurdistan. Gulf Keystone aims to be producing 15,000 barrels a day in Iraq by the end of the year. The exploration company revealed it had made a discovery at its Sheikh Adi-2 well, with testing showing flow rates of 4,235 barrels of oil-per-day. “This most recent exploration success points to the significant potential for further growth and future synergies across our world-class acreage in the Kurdistan region of Iraq,” said Todd Kozel, chief executive. The shares gushed 8½ - or 4.7pc - higher to 190¼p. The group’s biggest discovery in the area has been the Shaikan oil field, where Gulf Keystone hopes to produce 150,000 barrels of oil a day by 2015. That find transformed the group into one of the largest companies on Aim. However, a lawsuit brought by former US special forces soldier Rex Wempen has put pressure on the shares recently. Mr Wempen’s Excalibur Ventures is claiming a 30pc stake in Gulf Keystone’s Kurdistan assets in a legal dispute that is being heard in a London court. Gulf Keystone vigorously contests the claims. Related Articles Gulf Keystone court battle set to start this week 07 Oct 2012 ========= Author:Kandymans1 9th Nov/12 today 02:56 Bobs court notes bobobob5 - 09 Nov 2012 - 01:13 - 237116 of 237120 A very dramatic day indeed in Court. Rex Wempen was hammered by the GKP barrister from the first ball, and it continued all through to close-of-play. There were around six quite significant interventions by the Judge, seeking to get Excalibur to answer questions or make their answers clear etc. I have 25 pages of A4 notes...on top of the 39 pages from yesterday...I am really not at all sure quite what to do with the content. After lunch, the Clifford Chance team of two (sitting behind their remarkably silent barrister and his junior) was reduced to just one. What seems, to me, to be happening is that after so many days of relentless cross examination, all sorts of apparent inconsistencies are appearing between Excalibur's written and verbal evidence, and between Excalibur's current and earlier verbal evidence. All kinds of serious allegations and comments etc. were made today...imo it is starting to show signs of getting *very* ugly indeed. Quite what the Excalibur barrister, Clifford Chance, and the Funder, think about the situation I do not know. But in my personal judgement, I would be surprised if they were happy with things. Just my opinion. bobobob5 - 09 Nov 2012 - 01:38 - 237118 of 237120 chuffin: OK, from the very close-of play, in order to avoid any selectivity. With some paraphrasing. GKP barrister: "You said 'Thank you for the offer of the Interest Free Loan while our investment team is involved in closing funding'" He repeated it: "'While our investment team is closing funding'. Will you put your hand on your heart and confirm whether this is truthful, or not?" The Judge then repeated the question Rex Wempen: "It is incorrectly written. It talks about our fundraising plan" GKP barrister: "Don't you see the difference? Here you are, saying to Mr. Kozel 'While our investment team is closing funding'" Rex Wempen: "Mr Kozel knew (bob: about Excalibur's funding position)" Judge: "If he knew it quite well, why did you use this wording which is incorrect?" Rex Wempen: "I don't know why I used the wording" (my previous caveats apply. the above is given in good faith and is taken directly from my manuscript notes of today, p.25 and p.26) Note for clarification: the reference to the "Interest-free loan" was Rex Wempen taking seriously a joke which Todd Kozel had made, about providing Excalibur with an interest-free loan if they couldn't find the money for the PSC signature bonus etc. Rex Wempen had earlier today admitted that it was a joke by Todd Kozel but prima facie he took it seriously for a few days and wrote the above. ============== "bobobob5 - 08 Nov 2012 - 00:39:13 - 236654 of 237125 My son had the same master for Pure Mathematics as myself. The master liked to say "Why do you keep making it all so *complicated*?" Wise words indeed. When one truly understands something, when one has mastered it, it becomes straightforward. The clouds of confusion and complexity clear, and we see the underlying reality. My conclusion tonight is that: it's actually all very simple. Excalibur went for the wrong sort of contract. A small unlisted company with a skeleton staff and no money has imo about a snowflake in Hell's chance of raising risk capital for a high-risk high-cost wildcat in a country (Iraq) with no Oil Law. Can such a company do useful consultancy work? Of course. And be paid a consultancy or "Finder's Fee"? Certainly. We can argue about high school jinks and intemperate emails and suchlike forever. But in my opinion, it's the fundamental unsuitability of the 30% participation agreement that is at the root of all this. " ========== Doctors Appointment.WS renardargente M; Or those who defend him when they have ? What I would like from you Mr J'Excuse is a reasoned refutation of such criticism in the light of the irrefutable facts. The difference between us ( IMO ) being is that I am open to enlightenment by such arguments. I suggest you start with the SP in December 2010 at 185p and the SP today at 189p. That is; 0% increase in value ( with interest or inflation ) and 2 years of stasis. Go by way of the Excal case, major increases in OIP, major improvements in the ICG-KRG-Turkey political ( monetisation ) scene, $20m remuneration awards and ending up with an exculpation=((Cf. LL. exculpatio The act of exculpating from alleged fault or crime; that which exculpates; excuse. )) of our CEO and Chairman. That is; the man in charge of this 'baby';i.e. the one that refuses to develop into an adult investment. I'm all ears for your rational argument - based on the known facts of course. Mikey; Seriously, I am worried... WZR=WesternZagros Resources Ltd.TICKER: WZR:TSX. 'WZR are in an earlier stage than GKP and will come good at some point'. You are aware; WZR are fully funded through 2013. WZR have hi-Q production from Garmian ( daylight limited ) at rates of 6K bbls for most of the past year and will re-commence imminently? GKP's production must be enormous then if they are 'ahead'. (LOL). WZR were getting paid $50+ per bbl upfront and nett of all costs. GKP must be getting paid much more than that ( LOL ). The WZR SP has virtually doubled in the past year GKP must have quadrupled then. (LOL). WZR-TLM are testing the main Kurdamir-Topkhana reservoir as we speak... You've got me there - 4K bbls per day in the SA Jurassic and an oily sponge from Ber Bahr ( thank you E-deal ! ). (LOL) If you say WZR are 'going to come good at some point' after the profile above then 'Go WZR!! ' is all I can say. What is everyone doing here....? Unfortunately, you now have me really worried about Simon Hatfield's 'skeletons'. And he had plenty of meat on his bones the last time we met !? The threat must be serious. I'd better sell my WZR I guess as I don't want them turning into GKP. Come to think of it - I'd better sell my GKP for the same reason. --- Ren - no obsession w WZR broadford bay Jelly, I don't agree that Ren has "turned nasty" or obsessive... His highlighting of WZR has generally been positive because of the clear and relatively transparent manner that company adopts to keep its shareholders/co-owners informed about progress. He also tends to highlight the important character differences between the CEO's. If you know his background you would know that he has operated at very senior levels in this industry - and has seen just how other business and management approaches "work", for the benefit of all concerned. I would say that if he has any obsessions at all they are to do with ensuring that all shareholders are treated fairly. For example, he pointed out that TK's failure to cauterize the wound several years ago is the reason we are here in court today - Mr. W is not the problem but only a symptom of the problem.This goes to the heart of TK's lack of business professionalism and -acumen. It's not enough to say that the Kurdistan oil environment demands another type of "professional" - most business decisions come down to very few and very basic elements and while TK may seem to have plenty mojo he also seems to lack empathy for the other co-owners of this business. The seeming polarization of views with regard to whether TK should be canonized or whether we should reach for bell, book and candle can be left for another day. I too am unhappy with the situation but will hold my fire for when this case is settled. ====== spent time with the Gazzy boys in Erbil recently they were setting up their new office. Gazprom WILL be staying in Kurdistan. Oilman63 === Not sure if this thread has been investigated but is it possible that “Dan Franchie” is “Daniel Franchi” of Orange County, California and Vice President of Operations at Proteus Energy Corporation In researching the company profile for Proteus Energy it puts Rex’s ambitions to be a participant in the Shaikan PSC into context…… So Proteus Energy have a strong, technically capable management team, employees numbering 50 to 100, revenues of $10m to $25m and their website shows a couple of properties in the State of California. The company successfully held a $10m fundraising in Feb 2012. “Proteus operations are primarily focused on field redevelopment and recovery of undeveloped reserves, and generally do not take pure exploration risk”. Now contrast Excalibur Ventures ‘management team’, number of employees, revenues, technical cability AND bearing mind that Shaikan was a ‘circle of a map’ in an politically unstable corner of Northern Iraq (2007)….. and we’re expected to believe Rex & Eric could raise funds for this pure exploration risk!! In court Rex answered JG “Were we able to raise the money against the asset”. … (Shaikan which remember was just a circle on a map). Whilst e-mails at that time between EW & RW talk of “$1m being a great deal since we can’t raise funds” & “I bet they do not find any oil”. How much more of this nonsense will the judge put up with? ===========