http://www.gulfkeystone.com/ The firms exploration programme in Algeria is going well and "the shares look good value", say the Investors Chronicle. Your comments please. goal.

i do so enjoy punch and judy, and it's a real teat to be able to watch it indoors rather than on a cold and windswept swanage beach

C&P FROM ELSEWHERE.

From today's IC courtesy of Pathai on iii-

*

Gulf Keystone Petroleum

One of the most talked-about oil and gas frontiers in the world is located in the Kurdistan region of Northern Iraq. Fearful of alienating officials in Baghdad, the oil majors were initially reluctant to commit to the region, but the continued success of smaller operators such as Afren (AFR) and Gulf Keystone Petroleum (GKP) eventually prompted a change of tack. The Kurdistan Regional Government consequently expanded exploration deals with foreign oil majors and boosted a growing crude-for-products trade with Turkish interests, including the development of a gas/oil pipeline. Now the likes of ExxonMobil, Gazprom and Total are active in Kurdistan, and looking at ways in which to expand their footprint in the region. However, gaining acreage in Kurdistan has become progressively more difficult, so growth through acquisition is the way forward.

Gulf Keystone, through the scale of estimated production at its Shaikan oil field - 150,000 barrels of oil a day by 2015 - is a prime candidate for the majors, although any approach would be contingent upon the outcome of a legal dispute with Excalibur Ventures, which is claiming a 30 per cent stake in Gulf Keystone's Kurdistan assets.

Admittedly, the group has been subject to takeover speculation in the past, to no avail. But given the increased clamour for Kurdish assets, together with the fact that Gulf Keystone's share price is now 57 per cent adrift of its 12-month high, you could make a reasonable case that the group will end up in the majors' cross-hairs once the Excalibur affair is resolved. Mark Ray Robinson

From IC today re potentail M&A targets


-

Bambooman

Sorry about that fella.

M

.

judy's certainly is or even are!

.

swanage punch and judy has been going for over 100 years .... used to go to knoll house hotel when my children were young 20 or so years ago

.

it was probably mid 80s ..... Knoll House was and still is very child-friendly with an excellent adventure playground for them and plenty of other children of their age ..... beach within easy walking distance too .... sort of Butlins with BMWs!

.

it was a fun if slightly strange place with 4 square meals a day but at set times - e.g. dinner was at 19:30 sharp

.

always wondered where those "gastro" plates originated!

Maggie turning,don't know about that?

.

20:27 20 Nov'12
You could hear a penny drop

seebeearrgh

.........a little tete a tete between JG and SP, too fast to note
JG I hope I don't have to show you a letter CC wrote in aug 12 which I can say without any fear of contradiction is the silliest letter a distinguished firm could have ever written and we'll get into that if we need to. What I'm interested at the moment mr Wempen is answers to my questions
Who is P, who is backing it?


http://gkpinvestor.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=analysis&action=display&thread=1649#ixzz2DLbhHtbU

Tomorrow is a very importent day,a meeting of the councils and the judge is planned.
A nearing for dismissal is on the agenda,the following C&P will explain

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C&Pasted.

And another one, the bottom paragraph is relevant to wempens IMO!

How To Guides |
Community

My Helium | Join | Log in
Helium - Where Knowledge Rules

Where knowledge rules
Search Helium
Channel Button

Law & Justice
Business Law
Lawyers & Legal Advice

Home > Law & Justice > Lawyers & Legal Advice
What is dismissal without prejudice?

Top Article
All Articles

1 of 1
by D. Vogt

Writing Level StarWriting Level StarWriting Level StarWriting Level StarWriting Level Star

Created on: September 05, 2010

Dismissal without prejudice is a legal procedure in which a civil court judge dismisses a case but allows the plaintiff to, if they wish, make needed changes and file the case again.

In common law countries (including the United States, Canada, and Great Britain), civil courts often dismiss cases before a trial is completed - or, specifically, before a trial even begins. In general, there are two ways in which a case can be dismissed. The first of these is known as dismissal without prejudice. Dismissal without prejudice means that the courts will agree to hear - or, in legal parlance, would not be "prejudiced" against - hearing the case again if the plaintiff decides to return to court in the future and demand resolution of the same problem.

In a civil case, both the plaintiff and the defendant may request a dismissal without prejudice, or the judge can issue such an order himself or herself. The plaintiff may request such a dismissal if they have decided not to pursue the case, but wish to keep their options open in the event that they decide to return to the litigation at some future date. In contrast, the judge may issue the order (and it might be requested by the defendant) on the grounds that the plaintiff had committed some relatively minor or technical error in filing and presenting their case. Such an error would make the case unpresentable in its current form, even though it still might succeed given appropriate modifications and re-filing.

The second and separate method of dismissing litigation is with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice, in contrast to the above, is a decision by the judge that his or her court will dismiss the charge and will refuse to hear that charge in the future. Whereas plaintiffs may prefer a dismissal without prejudice to keep their options open, and judges may issue such an order as a result of a procedural error, a dismissal with prejudice is typically granted when it has become apparent that there is no way the plaintiff can feasibly prove the case they are attempting to present, or when they have committed an infraction so egregious that the litigation must not continue. In certain circumstances and in certain jurisdictions (but particularly in the United States), a dismissal with prejudice entitles the defendant to demand compensation for their legal expenses, whereas a dismissal without prejudice does not.

My limited understanding of what it's all about,is the namong of the backers in open court? If sucessful it could lead to a re-trial,which may put it all back 2 years? I suppose the idea is to pressure GKP's Board into a settlement,rather than prolong this issue?
BTWDIK?

.

mnamreh , cheers,hope your right.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/citydiary/9703996/City-Diary-Family-connections-oil-the-wheels-of-Gulf-Keystone-court-battle.html