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.

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

in my never humble opinion, that the partner(?) at CC has a link to Lemos Bros is an irrelevance ..... that the judge may dismiss the case will be much more interesting ..... it could be that LB and their cronies are not prepared to thrown any more money down the drain, or best result, would be that the judge decides that the Wempens evidence is so full of holes and worse, that the case is deemed no more than vexatious

all will be revealed in due course

.

have i seen many what?
almost certainly not, whatever the meaning of the Q :-)

however, an obligation to pay money into court up front is quite common i believe

.

would beg to differ, not least because it would almost imply prejudgment

.

is hermanm writing in sign language??

C&P'D

I read that minotaur post earlier and there are omissions, in particular with respect to force majeure, with Excalibur not qualifying to be on a PSC because of lack of professional/technical expertees and financial resource, therefore not conforming to local laws/rules/regulations as can be found in para 26 of Justice Gloster's judgement. In para 21, Excal are said to have not even tried to submit information to be authorised to bid.

.. and para 25:--
"25. Accordingly, it is the Defendants' case that, in spite of TKI's willingness to include Excalibur in a bid for petroleum contracts in Iraqi Kurdistan,Excalibur did not meet the legal requirements for participation in any such bid, or in any venture for the exploration and development of hydrocarbons in that region"

Para 26. sums it up.

Extract of relevant paragraphs and link to judgement:--

19.When TKI sought to transfer its rights under the Collaboration Agreement to Gulf Keystone, in April 2007, the Gulf Defendants' evidence is that Excalibur refused to allow Gulf Keystone to establish an interest in any bid for a production sharing contract with the KRG for oil exploration in the region, or to permit Gulf Keystone to become a party to the Collaboration Agreement.

20. In June 2006, Excalibur and TKI (by Mr. Wempen and Mr. Kozel, respectively) visited Kurdistan to meet the KRG's Minister for Natural Resources, Dr. Ashti Hawrami, to explore the possibility of securing a PSC with the KRG for oil exploration in the region. According to the Defendants' evidence, Dr. Hawrami made it clear that any prospective bid participant for a petroleum contract was required to satisfy certain criteria, in particular in relation to its professional and technical experience, capacity and financial resources. These criteria were subsequently set out in the Kurdistan Oil and Gas Law which was enacted by the KRG in August 2007.

21. It is the Defendants' case that Excalibur could never have qualified to be a party to any PSC, as it did not satisfy the relevant statutory criteria, and that 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. Their evidence is that, so far as they are aware, Excalibur never presented any information to the KRG Ministry for Natural Resources to demonstrate that it met the criteria for participation, even though the Minister had emphasised those requirements in his meetings with Mr. Kozel and Mr. Wempen in June 2006. The Defendants contend that Excalibur could not have done so, and it did not, therefore, qualify to participate in oil exploration or production ventures in Iraqi Kurdistan, and it could not be included in a bid. Its name was therefore omitted from the drafts of the PSC for the Shaikhan Block which were issued by the KRG.

22. The Ministry's concerns were apparently not limited to Excalibur. The Defendants' evidence is to the effect that, although the Ministry was satisfied that Gulf Keystone had demonstrated ample technical expertise, nonetheless it had concerns about the financial status of TKI and the Gulf companies. A large Hungarian corporation, MOL Hungarian Oil and Gas Company, was competing for licences in respect of other Blocks in Kurdistan at that time. The Minister proposed that Gulf introduce a co-bidder with additional financial strength, and in response, Gulf suggested that MOL should be brought into the bid for the Shaikhan and Akri Bijeel Blocks, as it appeared to be financially and technically more substantial than Gulf. MOL was willing to enter into the bid, and it did so through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Kalegran Limited.

23. On 6 November 2007, a PSC was executed by TKI, Gulf International, Kalegran Limited and the KRG, to explore and develop the Shaikhan Block in Iraqi Kurdistan. Gulf Keystone was named as the Operator under the PSC. Excalibur was not named as a party.

24. However, according to the Gulf Defendants' evidence, even after the execution of the PSC, TKI was willing to consider a "farm-in"[1] by Excalibur to the Shaikhan and Akri Bijeel PSCs, if such a proposal were feasible and if Excalibur were able to meet the qualification requirements. On 24 November 2007, Mr. Kozel wrote on behalf of Gulf Keystone to the Minister, asking for approval to add Excalibur as a non-operating partner in the PSCs for the Shaikhan and Akri Bijeel blocks. However, no such approval was ever given.

25. Accordingly, it is the Defendants' case that, in spite of TKI's willingness to include Excalibur in a bid for petroleum contracts in Iraqi Kurdistan, Excalibur did not meet the legal requirements for participation in any such bid, or in any venture for the exploration and development of hydrocarbons in that region. They point to clause 14.2.1 of the Collaboration Agreement, which expressly required compliance with all relevant local laws governing oil blocks in Iraqi Kurdistan; to clause 14.2.2, which provides:

"Nothing herein shall be constructed so as to require the commission of any act contrary to law in any relevant jurisdiction";

and to clause 14.2.3 which contained a warranty by each party that it had all relevant licences, permits and other government authorisations required in the conduct of its business.

26.They also point to clause 19, which provided that the parties would be released from liability by reason of force majeure, which was defined in clause 1.1 to include:

"… compliance with any laws, rules, regulations or orders of national or other governmental agencies or bodies having jurisdiction in or in respect of Iraqi Kurdistan, any Acreage acquired or to be acquired pursuant to this Agreement."

Thus it is the Defendants' case that Excalibur did not, and could not, meet the statutory requirements of the Kurdistan Oil and Gas law for participation in a PSC in Iraqi Kurdistan; and that, as a consequence, it did not and could not comply with its part of the bargain under the Collaboration Agreement. Accordingly, the Defendants say that TKI was not obliged to include Excalibur as a participant in the PSC, or, alternatively, the statutory prohibition against the inclusion of Excalibur in the PSC amounted to a force majeure event.
---------------------------

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/1624.html

GKP High Court 15 – Tues 27 Nov 2012 – 2pm

Eric Wempen (EW) being cross examined by Michael Crane (MC)

c 30 people in public seats. RW and 3 Lawyers for Excal and c 10/15 for GKP. TK appeared and then disappeared before session started.

H33 [9099] Email RW to EW 3/12/07 at 5.20pm re negotiations with GKP. ‘Either give me 60 days or buy me out’. EW reply at 5.28pm. ‘ Outstanding’. Later on EW says ‘ Go for buy out – a bird in the hand’.
H33 [9331.2] H34 [9364] Email EW to RW 2/1/08. ‘Facts look fine. Only a couple of typos etc’.
H33 [9117] Email EW to RW 4/12/07 ‘????’. Response by RW ‘ I offered GKP 85 per cent of 24 per cent share for $5m. Ali Qabandi has said it is in the right area’.
H33 [9107] Email RW to TK 5/12/07 at c9am or shortly thereafter with the offer detailed.
H33 [9136.2] Email RW to J Alexander at Baker Botts 5/12/07 at 8.04am was ‘basically offering MOL a share deal from Excal.’ EW says ‘ No recollection of being aware of this approach being made by RW’.
8/12/07 EW to RW ‘Stupid’ (ie describing RW bodged approach to MOL).
[9194.D] Email EW to RW ?date? ( NB. This was not in originally disclosed bundle, but it was sent to CC who regarded it as privileged). EW ‘ $1m is a good payout in the circumstances’ and later ‘ $5m is unreasonable’.
MC challenges EW veracity of witness statement in the light of the more recent document.
H33 [9089.7] 30/11/07 Email from MOL to Mr Patrick that MOL were prepared to waive Excal ??pre-emption right?? if GKP covered it.
H34 [9402] 8/1/08 Email draft from EW to Cadwallader re tax structure of a deal. Tax notes avoid reference to ‘Shaikan block’ while the Excal case specifically mentions it. Judge and EW exchanges re ‘inconsistency’ between the two ways of describing such a deal. Judge says in UK Excal’s interest would be described as an ‘equitable interest’ but he is not sure how it would be described in US.
[9559][9561][9566][9641][9662][9698] Redacted document 31/1/08. Cadwallader letter to TK with draft agreement attached between Excal and GKP re initial payment of $0.5m and an additional $0.5m on oil discovery. 7/3/08, 24/3/08, 1/4/08 exchanges between Williams of Cadwallader and Powell of Jones Day re detailed wording of clauses about definition of oil discovery being changed to petroleum discovery etc.
18/5/08 Email EW to RW re a relevant ‘Trade article’ and also that GKP seismic now processed and that EW had spoken to Makertich the GKP geologist who said a structure had been located and matters progressing promisingly.
MC then said that this is what stopped Excal concluding settlement negotiations with GKP.
21/5/08. Prime Natural Resources signed confidentiality agreement with Excal, via Robert Gordon. Lawyer for Prime was ?Aiken Gump? A number of documents were produced for them including Mr Patrick’s email dated 23/11/07. Jan Weldwijk said that if Excal could ‘revitalise option’ they’d be interested, but no claim possible as GKP appeared to have fulfilled its obligations.
Break 3.20 - 3.27pm
(?Date) Cadwallader letter to Jones Day on instructions from RW/EW saying to wait for drilling result on Shaikan and to review thereafter.
H38 [10707.1 and onwards] A few months later c28/10/08 Email EW to RW with draft Letter of Intent to Prime for 100 per cent interest/$1.5m to Excal/ Signatory not relevant.
[10715] 11/11/08. Hager of Prime to RW re ‘Strategic Ventures Capital’ 50/50 involvement but Excal being a party to the PSC was a ‘condition precedent.
[10836] A spreadsheet refers to ‘Offer of $1.5m’. EW agrees this was only a figure mentioned in negotiations.
[10837] 1/12/08 re EW tactical approach. MC. ‘Sign a non-binding agreement with Prime. Spurn them in a few months if hit the jackpot with Shaikan and proceed with litigation with intention of getting a higher settlement ( from GKP)?’ EW response was waffled.
[10902] [10911.1] Email EW to RW 16/12/08 ‘It just gets worse and worse’. EW suggests RW say to Prime ‘You’ve moved the goalposts and changed material terms’. MC then contrasts RW/EW saying they were incorruptible military men with above deceitful actions.
Clifford Chance engagement letter. EW says he can’t recall the date when they were first involved.
H42 [11,892.1] c6/12/10. Document entitled ‘ Excalibur Ventures Kurdistan Summary’. EW says both he and RW produced it, possibly with help from counsel and it was sent to max of 3 potential funders. It mentions a top legal firm and investment bank assisting Excal. MC says it was only after GKP had formally announced P50 or similar figures that Excal ‘pulled the trigger’. EW ‘Yes, we did wait for that to happen’. MC ‘ No more questions’.
Cross examination finished 4.05pm

JG cross examining EW
EW had stated in his earlier evidence that in early 2006 he was a contract lawyer ‘with background in New York law’. JG challenged EW over this as he had no formal qualifications backing up this assertion and was qualified in California. JG explored the general knowledge of EW on the principles of law re ‘Language of contract governs’. Also re role of ‘Agency’ and ‘Undisclosed principal’. JG said that in general if the CA does not mention GKP then GKP cannot be a party to the agreement and that up to the point of signing a contract either party can negotiate a change, subject to mutual agreement. JG ‘Only possible involvement for GKP in this case is via Agency.’
JG said EW had on 16/2/06 considered the final version of the CA for only about 45-60 minutes ( ie not very long) as RW was eager to get the document signed. EW ‘ I did consider the issue of the parties to the agreement.’ EW acknowledged that GKP not a named party but thought then and still thinks now that they are an unnamed one. JG said ‘ You spotted the concern but Excal took the risk on the language’. EW ‘Correct’. JG ‘ No more questions’.

JG to Judge. A 40 page witness statement ( I believe from Alex Panayides ) served with GKP at 8am today by Clifford Chance. GKP will need time to review and will advise Judge on a rolling basis of their progress.
Robert Kozel in witness box on Wednesday 28 Nov starting at 10.30am. SP has indicated 3 days for his cross examination. The Court will unusually be sitting this Friday.
Closed 4.45pm
( NB. This timetable poses some issues for next week’s scheduling as the next scheduled witness will be Todd Kozel. However, he is down to give a presentation at the major O+G