Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Lask,
EEGC is a scam stinky pinky. The CEO has claimed that he has had visions from god and then he denies them when under oath. The CEO "Mad Malcolm Bendall" has a cult following of supporters, who help him shill shares onto unsuspecting mugs. There are a number of people around the globe who find his behaviour disgusting and try to warn people not to waste their money.
If you are thinking that maybe there is something worth investing in here then you need to do your own research and do it properly - EEGC is on a STOP rating for a very good reason.
Please do some research and then come and join the debate if you want to. Trying to get people to do your research for you is not wise,
Without funding for a trial we will all be denied the pleasure of seeing Mad Malc ripped to shreds on the stand - such a shame. If we sold enough tickets for the spectacle may be they would cover Paul's fees but there are the rest of the court fees to pay.
And Paul is no longer talking about Billions
There was no seismic work in the Smart Win budget. Those are old invoices and irrelevant. Smart Win wanted proof EEGC had settled the invoices they said they had and they sent a load of old invoices to confuse the situation
Judge Oing did not rule on anything other than on ruling out 2 out of 3 of EEGC's counter claims. He denied Smart win's summary judgement motion. He gave Paul a very strong hint to drop his demand for jury trial, which he took and he also dropped a very strong hint that damages if they are awarded at all are a few million, not billions, and Paul has worked that out too.
The fact that EEGC does not have funding is one major blocker to a trial at all. But I hope EEGC over come that. Frank got a hard time because Judge Oing bailed Paul out again. Pitts thinks it is because he is trying to force an out of court settlement, I have a different theory, I think Judge Oing wants to see Mad Malc ripped apart on the stand as much as every sane person does.
Judge Oing did not "kick the MOU to the curb" he found an ambiguity with it - something Paul should had done but failed to do, so Judge Oing bailed him out yet again. It will be different when it comes to trial and the full horror of how incredibly incompetent and dishonest Mad Malc has been comes out - if there ever is a trial - who is paying Paul now?
To help you out with the question pitts has asked you. The country of incorporation matters when you need to piece the veil of incorporation ie go after the parents not the child.
Companies often incorporate in countries that are not their own - I think New Times is incorporated in Bermuda. That does not mean they have an office there and they will have to abide by the laws of where they are located for the most part. But as pitts points out in his steps to mad Malc heaven it will be the country of incorporation that hears the bankruptcy motion and the motion to pierce the veil. Not that it will get that far because the result of trying to sue 2 mainland Chinese companies in China is too obvious.
But are they going to bring him as a witness to the trial?
I really hope it goes to any form of trial at all, given EEGC can't fund it. There is no reason to overturn what it says in the contract about jury trial. Where Judge Oing found an ambiguity he left the matter open for trial, where he found no ambiguity ie the JV he ruled. He will have no truck with Jury trials given how unequivocal the contract is on the matter.
Mad Malc and John Garrison will be ripped apart at trial. Summary Judgement is all about having a water tight case on paper. Trial is all about balance of probability and credibility of witnesses. Smart Win can largely let Malc and John dig their own holes.
"So Mr Garrison you say in your deposition that you were a week away from finding loads of oil, what part of your accountants training makes you qualified to make that statement? Now lets turn to your spreadsheet which you admitted during your deposition you were not really controlling the submission of invoices. The bit where you make clear that all bills have to be paid before spud is that not a demand for payment over $5m?"
I thought you said Malc and John had the mythical JV meeting docs? Nothing has ever been put into the filings.
The whole turn off the spigot thing is American jargon running away with itself. Smart Win had sole discretion over individual payments. The Contract gave them that in the same condition it clearly says it must not go over $5m.
As soon as the bills submitted went over $5m and therefore the project could not proceed Smart Win had the right to withhold individual payments. They did actually pay the spauldings bill after the budget had been breached - that is fine they had sole discretion,
How Paul can continue to claim they never asked for more than $5m when the Garrison spread sheet clearly shows the due now bills which take the total well over $5m and say all these must be paid before the well can even spud and the sheet show $2.5M of extra smart win funding. It that is not asking for money then it is demanding money with menaces.
Malc's former argument regarding the JV also works against him his view was they were in a JV and his deposition clearly states that Smart Win should have coughed up the extra $500k.
The No JV ruling completely cripples the EEGC case. It is such a shame that it is so unlikely to come to trial because EEGC can't fund it.
I feel a little sorry for Frank in the summary judgement, because Judge Oing did Paul's job for him yet again in finding the ambiguity. What would Judge Oing do to Mad Malc? You could sell tickets.
Exactly as stated previously. The Judge found an ambiguity - something Paul failed to do. If the matter goes to trial Smart Win will be able to show that not only were bills submitted in excess of budget but the very wording of Garrisons spreadsheet was a demand that all be paid right now. All the cost at that stage were JOINTLY authorised and Smart Win had sole discretion
The JV issue, whilst the Judge entertained the idea of oral JV's he went back to the clear wording of the MOU. The Judge noticed that the draft JV document was missing and Paul had deliberately cut out the answer to the questions in deposition asking about it.
The damages Judge Oing allowed to be taken forward were the hard damages of standby charges. He basically agreed on the matter of speculative profits but would look at it at trial. A COS of 2% and the fact the well had not even spudded completely undermines the accountant's testimony.
WRT Jury trial "If the note says waive...then you are stuck with me as trier of fact"
Yes Paul will try to make a meal out of the whole thing if he can but again the transaction documents are explicit and just as with the JV the Judge will apply the clearly worded terms of the contract.
It really is a shame that it is unlikely to actually get to trial so Mad Malc can be ripped apart on the stand (he will have to testify, there is no requirement for Robert Ni, Professor Waxin or anyone else of that ilk to testify), due to nobody being mad enough to fund the EEGC case.
Those are the people waiting for mug punters to buy so they can sell.
"Mr. Batista notes that nothing in today's rulings by Justice Oing can be viewed as a prediction as to whether Smart Win or Empire will prevail in whole or in part on their respective claims against each other."
The first issue is Smart Win are the Plaintiff suing EEGC for breach. Thus the first thing EEGC need to do is defend themselves against Smart Win's claim that by submitting invoices over 10% in excess of the strictly capped total $5m budget EEGC breached the contract.
EEGC have no defense, now the JV has been ruled not to have existed, so there is no counterclaim that Smart Win breached.
It is a shame it is highly unlikely that it will come to trial because EEGC can't fund it. It would be really funny to see Mad Malc ripped apart and Paul make an even bigger fool of himself than he has already.
I am afraid you have misinterpreted what happened. It has been explained many many times. Notes for the purposes of summary judgement is key as it the reference to predicted overruns and not the real overruns that happened before Smart Win exercised their rights under the contract.
Even Paul does not try to claim that Judge Oing's denial of summary judgement means Smart Win Breached
Actually research show that when one side can't afford to pay the fees for a trial it gets settled out of court to the detriment of that party.
Who is funding EEGC's case - it won't be dim Tim Baldwin.
That divorce settlement you are looking for will leave EEGC broke and homeless and the shares delisted.
The JV meeting in Oct occurred AFTER EEGC had already breached the contract by submitting invoices for payment that took the budget over $500k over the strict $5m limit. It is hard to see it being deemed relevant, but no doubt every straw will be grasped at, it it ever gets to trial. Who is funded the EEGC case?
Noted
For the purpose of summary Judgement
Prediction
Might exceed
Not a determination a note
Only for the purposes of denying summary judgement
It was not a prediction the budget had been exceeded bu over 10%
No Might about it the Invoices were submitted and Garrisons spread sheet said cough up or no spud.
Empire breached not Smart Win The only material determination made other than denying summary judgement (a procedural issue) was the dertemination there was no JV - devastating to EEGC's case as that was the excuse for overspending and now they have no excuse for overspending.
Trouble is EEGC breached the contract by submitting bills to be paid in excess of $5M. That is the central issue and EEGC have no defense against it.
You could be right!
You should e-mail them straight away - info@mrt.tas.gov.au
And explain how Judge Oing ruling that Smart Win and EEGC were never in a JV (that is the ONLY substantive ruling Judge Oing made - everything else being around the denial of a summary judgement motion) means they should return the licence to Mad Malc immediately I am sure the real reason why the minister refused to grant the extension was because he thought Mal was in a JV with the Chinese. There must be a pretty good chance that when MRT realise the importance of Judge Oing's ruling that there was no JV, they will be able to convince the Minister to return the licence.
Then all Malc needs to do is get funding to drill, with the prospect of losing the case to Smart Win and any investor providing cash seeing it all go to Smart Win and Malc will be able to fail to drill yet again.
It would certainly be a huge shock for us all if Hugh Win were to put in an appearance. Perhaps Hugh is the guy who has more money and even less sense that Tim Baldwin and is thinking of funding this hopeless case.
I am still hoping Hugh Win is going to explain how submitting invoices for payment that were 10% over the budget laid down very clearly in the contract, was not a breach of that contract by EEGC. Fluff about JVs that never existed is fine for those who want to delude themselves, but we need to hear from Hugh on this key point that always seems to get ducked by EEGC.
Judge Oing rejected the whole line about implied and oral JVs, his determination was specific - there needed to be a document signed by both parties for a JV to have existed. None of the drivel around unfavourable JV's changes or justifies the FACT that EEGC breached the contract some time in mid Sep 08 by submitting invoices for payment that were in excess of the budget. It was the EEGC breach that gave Smart Win every right to withhold funding.
Judge Oing has not ruled in favour of either side on any other matter - it is all reserved for trial. He has ruled in favour of Smart Win on the JV issue. No JV! the attempts being made to spin this as still a factor prove EEGC's case has completely crumbled since Judge Oing made that DETERMINATION.
EEGC has no case without the JV and it has not been "kicked out for now" it has been kicked out for good - it was a determination not a "notes for the purposes of summary judgement".
EEGC has no defense against the fact that it breached the contract by submitting bills for Smart Win to pay that breached the budget. EEGC were unjustifiably aggressive sending lawyers letters to Smart Win trying to deny them their right of sole discretion under the contract.
Citing the comments of an accountant in a matter that requires the expert opinion of an independent geologist does not bode well for EEGC either. Mostly Judge Oing did that to show Frank that if he wants summary judgement his filings need to be comprehensive in rebutting such drivel, ie Frank should have put the relevant part of the CPR into the filings drawn attention to the 2% COS to substantiate his point on the whole thing being too speculative. Had he done that then Judge Oing would not have been citing the testimony of an accountant in a non accounting matter.
Who is Hugh Win and what is his role in the case?
Yes it is amazing how some will try to twist the plain words and make out they mean something else. Just like Paul tried to pretend the words of the contract around the JV were different. This was spotted and Judge Oing was very clear in his ruling on the JV.
Those who continually try to misrepresent the plain words are not in denial they are clearly trying to deliberately deceive others.
Even taking Paul's severely biased report of what happened:
That is not what Judge Oing ruled at all
The true case is that by submitting invoices for payment that exceeded $5m and demanding they be paid before the well could spud - evidence all in the Garrison spreadsheet.
Thus Judge Oing noting for the purposes of summary judgement that possible, forecast, future over runs did not give Smart Win the right to turn off the funds, thanks to the ambiguity in the contract which did not preclude that possibility is actually irrelevant to the true case. It would be nice to see the transcript of what actually occurred, rather than having to rely on Paul's biased version of events.
All very simple:
Incontrovertible proof has been presented that over $5.5m was submitted.
The contract is totally unambiguous about the budget not being allowed to exceed $5m.
EEGC breached the contract, which gave Smart Win sole discretion about which bills to pay or not pay anyway.
Malc's previous argument was that because they were in a JV it should not have mattered and Smart Win should have just coughed up the extra $500k to get the drilling started and kept coughing up until it was done. Judge Oing has ruled that there was no JV, so Malc's only argument that would excuse his utter incompetence in over running the budget (not possible future over runs) has been shot away.
People who rely on their sense of smell are often mistaken and misled
Paul is a wannabe C list celebrity joke. The only thing you can be sure of is he will want his fees up front and then he will be prepared to embarrass himself, his profession and the US legal system as much as necessary to keep the whole thing locked in expensive delay.
The US legal system has many fine principles, which are to be admired. The problem is lawyers like Paul just abuse those principles to turn it into a contest of who runs out of money to fund their lawyers first, rather than there being any real justice. Paul knows he is on the losing side in the real battle for justice, just as he knew when he resigned as counsel because he was not paid and saw no realistic prospect of getting paid (he clearly did not think Tim Baldwin would really be dumb enough to pump a second load of money in - even Tim is not dumb enough to pump a third load of money in) that he would be on the losing side in the game of who runs out of money to pay their lawyers first. But Paul, like many EEGC stooges, has no self respect. The difference between Paul and most EEGC stooges is he makes sure he gets paid for prostituting what little principle he has.
Wow hallucinogenics getting even stronger.
Wow the hallucinogenics must be really flowing A New York Judge in a summary judgement hearing having some impact on government decision making in a completely different country. Pass it round man it is clearly good stuff.
The summary judgement case was made around the contract being unambiguous. The law states that first an ambiguity must be found. No contract is 100% water tight and anyone with sufficient intelligence (Judge Oing has sufficient intelligence, Paul does not) can find an ambiguity in it. There are more ambiguities for example the contract did not say that Bellevue was to be the first well, it did state that Thunderbolt would be the second (Oilsleuth spotted that one and posted it). The ambiguity must be relevant - the Bellevue one could have been spun into relevance, but Paul either did not spot it or did not bother. The ambiguity Judge Oing found for Paul is not really relevant to the true case, but Frank was too busy blathering on about the $2.5m forecast over run to hammer home the point, which he did make in the first summary judgement hearing, that bills had been submitted over $5m and the drilling would not have commenced even if Smart Win had been silly enough to pay $5m worth of what had been submitted. Smart Win did not have to pay because they had sole discretion and EEGC had breached the contract by submitting bills for more than $5m - the contract is totally unambiguous on this point. Judge Oing could have cut Frank a little bit of slack - he is plenty smart enough to have bailed him out in the way he bailed Paul out. But he decided to make a few points about contracts and incompletely prepared cases and the need for water tightness to achieve summary judgement. I am sure Frank has learned some valuable lessons from the education Judge Oing has provided him and I doubt he will make the same mistake again.
I tend to agree with Pitts when he said Judge Oing's ultimate aim was to get the parties to settle out of court. Both of them do deserve each other. Smart Win were not smart in so many ways, including getting involved with Mad Malc in the first place and not completing due diligence BEFORE they started advancing any cash.
The case is exceptionally unlikely to come to trial, as EEGC can't fund it and as there is no prospect of seeing any cash even if by some miracle EEGC were to be awarded any in New York, only someone with more money and more stupidity than Tim Baldwin would even think of funding the EEGC case.
Judge Oing therefore did not render a decision favourable to EEGC. However in ruling that there was no JV he did render a decision favourable to Smart Win - the contract was completely unambiguous and therefore Judge Oing could not have rendered any other decision even if he wanted to, not that I have any reason to think he has acted in a biased manner at any time or in any way, nor would I be so disrespectful to suggest he had acted in such an inappropriate manner, indeed it is only those who claim to believe in the EEGC case who have made such disgraceful and unfounded allegations of bias and favouritism against Judge Oing.
It is cear where the sugarcoating and twisting of facts is taking place:
Even taking Paul's severely biased report of what happened:
That is not what Judge Oing ruled at all
Latest pump and dump has run out of steam and dumping has begun. Looks like Bergen managed to clear their remaining holdings in time to convert another wedge in the New Year - they may short in to it this time.
New all time lows expected before Christmas, no sign of any of the jam promised for Q4 materializing and we are still waiting for the next RNS dressing delays up as progress and deferring jam delivery for various times in 2015.
Have the liquidators wound up Malc's wind farm scam Bass Energy yet? The major shareholder in that, who I spoke to said Malc pocketed the cash they gave him so they took control of the company, but still having Malc's name involved in it was a massive liability, as when they spoke to farmers etc about putting wind turbines on their land, the answer was they did not want anything to do with anything that Malc had anything to do with.
Because Smart Win's lawyer did not make a water tight enough case for summary judgement.
First they need to prove that Smart Win breached the contract. Now the "we were in a JV" argument has gone, what excuse are EEGC going to use for the FACT that they submitted invoices totaling over $5.%m for payment by SW BEFORE spud? It needs to be a very good one as that is a clear breach by EEGC.
Once they have proved SW breached (How I have no idea but Mad Malc will no doubt dream up some new line) then they would have to prove the oil was there as stated in Garrison's affidavit, how are they going to reconcile the oil was there with the 2% COS in the CPR? Mad Malc has testified on oath that he did not have a vision from God so he can't turn around an say but God told me the oil was there are you calling God a liar?
The share price is a voting machine, the true value of a company as measured by the NPV of future cash flows is the weighing machine. With zero potential future cash flows the true value of EEGC is 0.