Thanks. Sorry, I can't guarantee to be able to read everything - indeed, I couldn't read anything to do with OXS for more than a year. There is no point in me posting until I have read all the documents I should have: Insolvency Law - the relevant Acts of Parliament to estimate the right level of fear I should have about the administrators running the show what with their £500 per hour business costs, and about what duties, if any, they have to the residual risk takers (us?), and how they can be made, if at all, to balance the interests of the different creditor types; French Law on the grounds for overturning arbitral awards (Les recours contre les sentences arbitrales?); All the examples of successful overturnings of Uncitral awards in France (annulations de sentences arbitrales) where France was the siege d'arbitrage; (I know a little about the Tapie case against Credit Lyonais) Studying the Tapie case is to restore my psychological well being as well as to learn a lot of useful French business and legal language (the highs and lows of the Tapie case are so extreme there seem to be no parallels in our Anglo Saxon world (or maybe I am just ignorant about similar cases here?): he had ambitions to be president of France, he was a media star, he had friends in high places on both the left and right of politics, he was made bankrupt, he spent time in prison and then after bankruptcy he was awarded 400+ millions of Euros in an arbitration award, only for it to be ordered to be paid back by the cour d'appel and later by the cour de cassation (Supreme Court?); Read our arbitral award (i.e. the bits I have not wanted to read) and see whether it violates le principe de contradiction or un ordre public. Work out why two French speaking "QC or High Court Judge" equivalents, both with distinguished careers, would make a ruling that apparently breaks French law; Discard my theories that don't stand up to scrutiny by other people attending the meeting on 12/9/16 (i.e. RW, Pug, Nick2412, et al.
An interesting Youtube video is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmZg8bBLMAo where you see a re-enactment of un coursier (a motorcycle courier is the cultural equivalent here?) deliver an arbitral award to Tapie's lawyers' office (61 Rue de Miromesnil) take place in the first few minutes, where the commentator explains about the lawyer turning straight to relevant page to read about the award of 400m euros or whatever. The highs and lows of Bernard Tapie seem more extreme than anything I have suffered so, and I am greatly encouraged by any meeting organised by any of the staff of Oxus, even if there is nothing they can technically do at present to rectify the injustice we seem to have suffered (some recognition of contributory fault by the Uzbeks to the failure of the financing without any corresponding compensation being awarded surely must be a violation of le principe de contradiction, but WDIK?
At a guess, it might mean the Uzbeks aren't even paying Calunius, the litgation funders, any of the award because the Uzbeks want to deduct the $10m debt they allege Oxus owes them off the Award first. i.e. there is not going to be any payout to any creditors, even to Calunius (who are ahead of us shareholders in the payout queue), unless a new much larger award is obtained. Am not a lawyer or insolvency practitioner, but that is my reading of it. The prescribed part must be something that the administrators have to do by law as part of the administration process, I wonder?
Item 8 Prospect for creditors.... Reads Under Section 176A of the Insolvency Act 1986, where after 15 September 2003 a company has granted to a creditor a floating charge a proportion of the net property of the company must be made available purely for the unsecured creditors. The Company has not granted a floating charge to any creditor after 15 September 2003 and consequently there will be no prescribed part in this administration. Except to the extent that the Company is successful in obtaining a partial annulment of the arbitration decision and subsequently obtains a significantly larger award in a further arbitration, there is no prospect of funds becoming available for distribution to the Company’s preferential and unsecured creditors, or shareholders.
The last sentence states " there is no prospect of funds becoming available to unsecured creditors or share holders"
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.