RE: Suntrust Oil Injunction Doc Nigeria12 Aug 2018 21:58
There has been a tendency by some on this board to treat at face value stuff they have read in the Nigerian press or in directly leaked documentation, the source of which in both cases is Sun Trust. So I finally had time to read back through the Admission Document and other stuff including the copies of Motion and supporting affidavit recently leaked, in attempt to sense-check what we are being told here. I have done that from a fairly sceptical perspective, since in my experience a commercial plaintiff who believe they have a strong case as they launch proceedings just would not behave as Sun Trust appear to have done so far here. I have no idea whether they have yet served this Motion or not but given it appears to be date stamped 22 May (that's nearly 3 months ago) if not now, when? If they have or they do, it will at least allow San Leon and the other respondents named as parties, the opportunity finally to respond and challenge in a formal way through a medium which requires actual evidence to be presented by all the parties and for that to be legally considered.
So and without prejudging what that evidence will say, I'm just going to pose some of the fairly obvious questions and points that arise out of what we already have in front of us, and in essence so far as I say that has only come from Sun Trust.
1. If we believe what we're hearing, Sun Trust have waited for 2 years before demanding payment of their $50m for the sale of their 20% holding in Martwestern. (if that is via the alleged guarantee to the bank or not is probably irrelevant, except you might imagine banks are not normally that patient). so the question arises whether that is a rationally credible proposition?
2. If we believe what we're hearing, Sun Trust have waited 2 years before coming to the realisation that the commercial transaction they willingly entered into with a number of parties and with legal advice is now null and void for technical deficiencies (right of first refusal/ accession agrt.) alleged now but not raised by Sun Trust at the time. is that a rationally credible proposition?
3. Sun Trust say that they 'purported' to transfer their shares in Martwestern. Wtf does that mean? - they were taking hallucinatory drugs and hadnt realised they were transferring the shares? They either did or they didn't.
4. What might a court make of these statements and facts? Would a court see these submissions as meritorious? do you believe that San Leon's and Midwestern's lawyers would not have required acceptance and supporting waivers of all other rights in consideration of the deal as documented?
5. What might a court's view be of the plaintiff's behaviour in leaking sub judice legal documents (including sworn affidavit evidence) to the press and directly months before they were presented to the respondents and to the court for hearing?
But the most remarkable question that arises out of this partially detailed journey, that Sun Trust have taken
Sign In
Follow the stocks
