Member Info for Alaric

just before we finish this game of 'nyah nyah na nyah nyah, my daddy's lawyer is bigger than your daddy's' ( which has been super good fun, don't get me wrong ) i would just like to thank the trolls ( ie. non - shareholders) for starting it. It is easy to say that i suppose as we shareholders ( they call us 'team rampitup' or 'team links' in a vaguely unimagineative way) seem to have won it by an embarrassing margin and quite easily. but, lest we forget, they started the game just at the time we were beginning to really focus on the inherent weaknesses in Sun Trust's case. and great fun though it's been, it does make you wonder why a bunch of guys, who sold their holdings here a while ago and at a significant loss, want to play 'nyah nyah na nyah nyah ' in the first place?

here's the link https://www.fieldfisher.com/media/2018/04/fieldfisher-wins-law-firm-of-the-year

complete garbage, Sid, as it is 2 years old and completely irrelevant to the (bad) point you were attempting to make viz.somehow San Leon would as a result have difficulty accessing decent legal advice. the point was of course nonsense . Btw. San Leon's London lawyers are Fieldfisher, who won the prestigious 2018 Business Lawfirm of the year award from, wait for it. .. your favourite legal journal... yes...Legal Business!

there is a discernibly increasing note of desperation in some of the more recent posts by you and your mates B7, as you look for avenues to avoid addressing the many reasoned points, i and a few others have put up about this case. it is these i guess you try to deride as 'double speak'. fortunately this spurious set of claims by Sun Trust is heading towards a more exacting examination in the Nigerian High Court, than we see here on this board in the court of public opinion. Acrimony is inherent in all commercial disputes but the cost of defending injunction proceedings is limited and easily manageable for San Leon, who as you know now have many millions in the bank. you are nearly right about one thing though, since Nigeria has a pretty evolved commercial legal system, which along with its court
structure and procedures, is significantly based on English Law ( eg. the form and content structure of the leaked motion and affidavit would be instantly recognisable to an English trained lawyer who had never set foot in Nigeria.) Proceedings in their High Court are also mainly conducted in English. LOL? well i'm still laughing.

BS - think you maybe confusing bluerill with Sid here (for which you will now have his endless respect!), in your mutual obsession with the relative strengths of lawyers you've never met. the recent banal focus on how good you all seem to think Sun Trust's legal team is only serves to demonstrate that you are in truth anxious about the underlying weaknesses of their case. and you are right to be anxious for the many reasons that some of us have already posted. i have quite a bit more i could throw at it but this board generally doesn't engage in that level of factual actual legal discussion, preferring sophistry and innuendo. and remember, courtesy of Sun Trust's actions in leaking their case to the press, we and SLE have now seen their hand - they haven't seen ours yet . i don't imagine that the respondents' respective legal teams will have been idle during this phase.

' hopefully we could walk away with a load of money' . now you are losing the plot here BS! also been hearing a lot from Sid and you recently about how much legal firepower Sun Trust has at its command. just makes it the more surprising how transparently third rate their approach to these proceedings has been.

well for fear of repeating oneself, here's at least 2 sets of lawyers who disagree with the proposition that consent might be needed. then it will be just down to Sun Trust to explain how it is that, 2 years after having willingly entered a legal agreement to transfer their shares for value, they come to be writing to the DPR suggesting that the said transfers were iilegal. in injunction proceedings it is particularly important to have the merits of the case with you, so will be fascinating hearing how Sun Trust's brief blags that.

'San Leon obtained legal advice prior to the purchase which confirmed that, owing to the way that the transaction was structured (and specifically the nature of its indirect interest in OML 18), it was not necessary for Eroton to obtain prior consent from the Minister. Furthermore, San Leon and its partners have today re-confirmed with their legal advisers that this position is correct and the DPR will be notified accordingly.

As previously announced, the Company remains of the view that the purported allegations by SunTrust are without any foundation or merit. The Company will provide further updates in due course.'

I get the bitterness some feel here over the losses over 8 years ( you say ) and for others that Avobone failed to deliver the coup de grace that so many here predicted and got wrong, (i am on record at that time saying that Avobone would not bust the company , which from an investment perspective was the only relevant criterion then). But these are now irrelevant from any forward looking investment viewpoint. if people don't agree with that proposition they can sell and go away.
Frus - you do not need to be a lawyer to see the obvious flaws in the letters written by DPR and in who they are addressed to. you do need however to be prepared to look beyond your first impressions and question most of the the assumptions and therefore also the statements made in them. you also need to remember who asked DPR to write these letters, possibly indeed even dictating their terms. if you have no appetite to do any of that, because you feel this is the second Armageddon, after the pestilence foretold by Avobone disappointingly failed to punish the tribe of Oisin, then you won't and in the short term that may make you feel better. but some here may want to think a little deeper about those letters and how they may play out in the injunction proceedings, when DPR counsel can be questioned about them and San Leon's and Midwestern's respective counsel will make their representations and present their evidence for the first time.

just keep posting Sid, the court of public opinion and its relationship to your uncannily prejudicial utterrances are the best possible evidence that damage has been done to SLE by Sun Trust's unethical approach to these proceedings. the thought that you're now helping our case amuses me, but i admit that doesn't take a lot. on a slightly more serious note, the point you choose to miss (and there have been a few of those recently, let's face it) is that nobody got this info from the High Court in Lagos, they got it from express leaks ahead of service by Sun Trust and that is a serious matter. if you insist on addressing me as 'me old mukka' then ok I will accept 'me old mukka Q.C' btw it's the abbreviation for Queen's CounSEL'
in the context of the many other inaccuracies in your posts though, i won't die in a ditch for it.

BS: Oh yes he is!
Alaric: Oh no he isn't

there you go BS - just saved the need for another exchange

Just looking at the map, you will see that Onne is just west of OML18 across a couple of channels and like us just south of Port Harcourt and just north of Bonny Island terminal. So Eroton is ideally positioned as gas supplier for this.

with Notore recently getting their listing on NSE, worth reading this if you haven't already.
http://thenationonlineng.net/notore-oil-dreams-big-over-free-zone-developer-status/

'The Notore chief executive said his company would in the next few months roll out its plan for the industrial complex at Onne, adding that part of the objective was to make it a hub for gas utilisation that will serve as the feedstock for its fertilizer, petrochemical and power plants.

Okoloko said: “Through our gas sale agreement with an indigenous oil and gas company, Eroton Exploration & Production Limited, we have guaranteed gas supply to the complex.'

rather think, BlackSwan, the panto bluerill was referring to was actually a Whitehall farce staged by Sun Trust!

...and just to show there's nothing personal here against Junkie, he did get part of his post from 21 May partially right, when he implicitly referred to the section of one of the DPR letters, whereby the parties are invited now to follow the procedure outlined in the letter. making clear that, if needed, consent can be granted retrospectively. i know this point has been made before but with some of the muddled thinking on show today, i felt it appropriate to remind. that's still a fail on the paper overall, am afraid Junkie, but you can take limited encouragement from this limited praise.

BlackSwan, you almost managed to confuse me but think QF has clarified again. phew. suggest you reread the two DPR letters that someone posted here, to see that San Leon are the one party for sure who couldn't have been required to do anything, if, which as you know is expressly denied by San Leon , anything was required to be done by anybody. you're not alone, since Junkie started the confusion, as QF also correctly spotted earlier in the day, by not knowing the difference between an Assignor and an Assignee. easy mistake i guess with just the 2 letters changing but one leading to a potentially very different outcome and one that suited Junkie's narrative. strange that.

junkie -'Alaric, Bluerill, as you seem to be privy to information not in the public domain' please clarify? btw. i'd be careful how you answer.

heh B7, just great to see all you guys coming out of the woodwork, as some here post reasoned factual arguments against the proposition that it's gameover with Sun Trust. afraid your dreams are built on vapour if you're counting on Sun Trust to deliver.

just before I dive out for the day....on the face of things QF, that would appear to be correct. think the one party who definitely isn't the assignor is us. so we can begin to see the unhealthy circularity of the evidence and circumstances of Sun Trust's case. 2 years after these events took place (or didn't as the case may be) Sun Trust appear essentially to be asking a court to have sympathy for the fact that they are now losers. and this in circumstances where they willingly and on legal advice transferred their shares in Martwestern for a stated consideration (cash and shares in San Leon) all written in formal legal documentation signed by them. and one of the principal strands they appear to rely on is that they failed to apply or to at least join in the application for consent to such assignment from the statutory authorities at the time. their retrospectively fitted construct on all this may be seen therefore as inherently distasteful. does that matter legally? will return later on why, particularly in injunction proceedings, the merits of a case matter very much indeed.

this is what junkie advised us all back on 21 May:
'Re-reading DPR's letter to Suntrust, it does state that the Assignor (in this case SLE) is the party to gain ministerial consent. It doesn't mention getting agreement of the Assignee (SunTrust) . Good news but does beg the question why SLE didn't just retrospectively look for consent as soon as SunTrust started their antics?? Judiciaries anywhere, not just Nigeria, don't take kindly to avoidance of legal procedure.'
More later from me when I get back but in meantime perhaps you can look at this and spot what may be badly wrong and what might be right in his statements?

...really don't have time to go through all this garbage again and i wish some others for once bothered to do some elementary homework before spouting out the first childlike thoughts they have on re-seeing another of the many 'evidence' leaks that Sun Trust has seen fit to spew out, as it vainly attempts to keep afloat its badly listing case, even before it gets to any kind of a hearing. (this ship has so many holes in it, it will frankly be lucky to get to port). talk about prejudicial engineering and btw typically courts do not warm to claimants who indulge in this kind of inappropriate behaviour. nor do they typically see merit in claimants who cry foul in circumstances in which the claimants were themselves key, willing and, at the time profiting, participants in the alleged foul. so you may just have spotted a circularity in the correspondence that Sun Trust has conjured out of DPR on this current topic ? ok i will spell it out : it was entirely instigated by Sun Trust, even though at least some of the supposedly illegal share transfers were their own. For the moment though let us at least remember, in the interests of balance, what our company had to say on this subject a couple of months back:

'San Leon Energy plc, the AIM listed company, focused on oil and gas development and appraisal in Africa and Europe, has been provided with a copy of correspondence between SunTrust Oil (“SunTrust”) and the Nigerian Department of Petroleum Resources (“DPR”). The correspondence relates to a requirement under Nigerian law for the Minister of Petroleum Resources to consent to any assignment of interests in oil and gas assets in Nigeria and the fact that such consent was not obtained prior to the purchase by the Company of its indirect interest in OML 18.

San Leon obtained legal advice prior to the purchase which confirmed that, owing to the way that the transaction was structured (and specifically the nature of its indirect interest in OML 18), it was not necessary for Eroton to obtain prior consent from the Minister. Furthermore, San Leon and its partners have today re-confirmed with their legal advisers that this position is correct and the DPR will be notified accordingly.

As previously announced, the Company remains of the view that the purported allegations by SunTrust are without any foundation or merit. The Company will provide further updates in due course.'

More tomorrow if I have the energy and anyway suspect that's enough for fragile intellects tonight. Ps for junkie, we can also revisit the important subject of 'assignment', with which you have historically struggled , so that should be fun!