Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter




Quick Poll
QUICK POLL >
Would you like to own a helicopter?




Member Info for Siko


Member Since: Sun, 11th Dec 2011

Number of Share Chat Posts (all time): 1,144
Number of Share Chat Posts (last 30 days): 14

Last Posted: 13 May '15


Post Distribution over the last 30 days




13 May '15


(In the unlikely event that the Group is unsuccessful in either or both of its legal actions, and that the operating activities are restricted to a reduced area, it is the director's belief that the Group will be able to continue as going concern)

For me, this is the first time that the company explains this point in black and white. Yes we are confident of the outcome of the cc, but if the worst case scenario happens and we lose the appeal, then it does not mean we lose the whole thing.. No.. It only means (The operating activities are restricted to a reduced area) because as I explained before the previous ruling did not cancel the contract altogether, but returned back to the original 3sq km area originally allocated by the previous minister, and as far as I know all Alsukary's announced reserve is within the 3sq km area.. 500k ounces for 20 years..

Am I reading this correct or not?

Any comments are welcome..

11 May '15


wow.. that post took 2 hours to write..!!
11 May '15


cont:

so from the court's point of view, the approval of he minister was absent, which made the court to invalidate the contract.

According to CEY, this signed document has now been submitted.
11 May '15


I spent a lot of time looking for a copy of the signed contract online, but could not find anything, so I decided to dig deeper in the court papers to see if I could find any more details, sorry there is no link for this so you have to take my word for it.

This is the part of CEY appeal in relation to the exploitation contract as listed in the commissioners report.

According to the agreement (point 3C) after the commercial discovery, an agreement is to be reached between CEY & EMRA to specify the area which is to be covered by the exploitation contract, and after the agreement between CEY & EMRA on the area, it is a must to obtain the approval of the minster on that agreement, and after the approval of the minister on the area of the exploitation, that agreed area is to be transformed automatically into an exploitation contract. (page13)

According to the agreement (point 24B, law 222 year 1994), any dispute between CEY & EMRA is to be resolved by The Cairo Regional Center for International Commercial Arbitration "CRCICA" and its rulings are final and binding for both parties. (page 9).

When CEY & EMRA disagreed about the exploitation area, CEY went to CRCICA on 9/3/2003 and filed case No 338 year 2003. (page 14)

CEY & EMRA reached an agreement for 160sq km area, this agreement was documented by a contract signed by CEY & EMRA on 4/4/2005. (page 14)

This contract was presented to CRCICA and a ruling was issued on 12/4/2005 in case 338 year 2003 containing the conditions of the contract. (page 14).

A copy of the ruling and a copy of the contract were submitted to the administrative court, this is acknowledged in the court papers. (page 5)

So from this contract, the condition of an agreement between CEY & EMRA in relation to specifying the exploitation area was fulfilled according to the agreement. (14)

Ater the agreement between CEY & EMRA on the area of the exploitation contract, the matter was presented to the petroleum minister and a document was presented to the minister to get his approval on the area, who agreed on 24/5/2005 on the 160sq km area and he signed the presented document and the attached map which specified the area as 160sq km. This is the agreement which the ruling denied its presence. (14)

And from this point, the condition of obtaining the approval of the minister was fulfilled.

So from the above, it is clear and obvious that CEY has fulfilled all the required conditions to obtain an exploitation contract for a 160 sq km area and the contract is legally valid and thus the ruling was wrong to invalidate a contract which fulfilled all the required conditions.(14)

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

So from the above, it seems like the agreement between CEY & EMRA which was presented to CRCICA was submitted to the court, but the document which was submitted to the minister and he signed it along with the maps was not submitted, so from the court poi
9 May '15


I don't know where you are up to, so this is a summary that I posted earlier. It's nearly everything about the cc up to now..

CEY has an agreement approved by the Parliament "Law 222" to explore and exploit gold in the Eastern Desert area.

According to the agreement, after the commercial discovery and after a dispute, EMRA & CEY signed an exploitation contract for a 160sq km area approved by the petroleum minister.

Alfakharany filed a case at the administrative court to cancel the agreement and the contract. His main claim was the agreement was not fair for Egypt.

The commissioners recommendation was that the court could not consider the case because the agreement was a law which could not be cancelled by a court.

The administrative court decision was not to cancel the agreement, but to cancel the exploitation contract in relation to allocating 160sq km as the exploitation area. The reason for the ruling was the absence of the exploitation contract of the 160sq km area (which is the proof that the minister approved the agreement between CEY & EMRA as per agreement).

The state, EMRA & CEY filed 3 appeals at the supreme administrative court SAC and according to CEY the contract was submitted.

Alfakharany also filed an appeal at the SAC asking to cancel the agreement.

The commissioners recommendation was to cancel the agreement & the contract (everything).

The SAC decided to stop enforcing the first ruling until the final ruling by the SAC.

Adly Mansour issued law 32 preventing 3rd parties from filing appeals against state contracts. The law should be applied to all cases that have not had a final ruling (i.e CEY), which means the case to be dismissed/refused.

ECESR "Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights" appealed against law 32 at the supreme constitutional court SCC. The appeal is with the SCC commissioners now to prepare their report/recommendations.

Since the appeal of the ECESR, the courts have suspended/adjourned all related cases pending the decision of the SCC on law 32.

If the SCC approves law 32, it will be active & effective straight away.

If the SCC does not approve law 32, then the cc will go ahead as normal and will be judged based on the merits of the appeal.

Once the parliament meets, it should consider all the decrees issued by the president and could approve/amend/cancel any of them. If any decrees are not approved, their legality are revoked retroactively, unless the House affirms their validity for the previous period, or chooses to settle the consequent effects. The parliamentary elections should be done before the end of this year.

Next hearing for CEY cc appeal at the SAC is on 16th June 2015.

Please note that all the above is an "unofficial" update, the contents were obtained from the media and friends as CEY have not issued detailed updates for a long time (Refer to CEY site for the official updates).


Sign up for Live Prices
Top Recommended
Hot Chat Topics
Top recommended posters in the last 30 days
Share Price SpacerCalculatedGuess913 
Share Price Spaceronceatrader638 
Share Price Spacerdaveycaferacer549 
Share Price Spacercunners531 
Share Price SpacerAlphaOmega530 
Share Price SpacerBarksy1464 
Share Price SpacerQuixotic461 
Share Price SpacerSierra117459 




Member Login

Forgotten your password?
Email:

Password:


Don't have an account? Click here to Register Free!


Home  |  Contact Us  |  About Us  |  Careers  |  Advertise with Us  |  Sitemap  |  Terms & Conditions  |  Cookies  |  Privacy


Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.