Replies to post #39408 on Empire Energy Corporation Intl. (fka EEGC)

[clipso]

heres whats going on, and why…


the share price has over quadded since its low….if one would have not bought into the "negative press", you would be a better investor(or should i say "gambler" )than bill ackman..its easily gonna quad from here as well, as soon as the judge(doesn't matter if its jury or judge) rules…

read below and one will certainly see what the judge is thinking, and how he will rule, all according to the NY law smart win themselves requested…

smart win is getting ready to lose the case…they are so desperate, they are appealing the judges "no summary judgement" ruling, and they are the plaintiff…their case is VERY weak against eegc, in fact the judge allowed eegc's claim that there was a breach of contract by the plaintiffs, smart win, to continue

VERBATIM, from the court transcript what the judge…


has said(its in the court report )…no additional words are added(i'm not making up what is outlined below…its only "out of context" if its not in the context one wants to hear/read it…


https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=Z54WlguIRPuDi2b1OftQQQ==


this case is not about EEGC being over the budget…the case is about SW underfunding the agreed upon amount, and by doing so, the judge is allowing the eegc countersuit to continue(because not only is it a fact, its the truth, and the judge believes eegc has a valid point/case….

page 37 lines 14-23 ….look it up if in doubt...

Quote: from the judge(he's saying that the remaining $1.1 million that was underfunded(according to the agreement) that someone owes that money, and in fact SW is could be liable…

Quote:

So, while the plaintiffs argue they are
speculative, I think that this testimony here in this
record here also indicates that at the end of the day
those damages that are being claimed here may not be
speculative. They may be hard dollar amount to when you
stopped the money from corning in right away.
First of all, there are the expenses that
haven't been paid because somebody has got to still pay
them, right? They tendered in bills or invoices to get
paid. They weren't paid.



page 38 lines 10-19
Quote:from the judge


Quote:

but there are real costs
to when there is a construction project and you turn off
the funding source, there are real costs that can be
calculable that are associated with the funding loss.
So, under those circumstances, the damages
claims are not speculative at this point on this record
and that that in and of itself permits me to allow the
defendant's counterclaim for breach of contract to
continue.


unless the judge was being highly deceptive, which i doubt, this is CLEARLY what he said…

Quote: from the judge
Quote:

At the end of the day, it's a matter of
plaintiffs not liking this transaction any more .Going
into it everyone thought they were going to be making a
lot of money which is great but as it went along clearly
the project or the expedition of drilling for oil in
Tasmania looked a little bit bleak and I guess at that
point there is factual issues as to whether or not the
lender wanted to just get out of this deal.
So, under those circumstances, I find there is a
factual issue with respect to the breach of contract and
therefore that branch of plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment on the first cause of action is DENIEDD.



page 10-11

quote from the judge…

Quote:

You know, you have the $5 million that's the budget. We know with budgets with construction projects or any projects you go over the budget. So that why does
that necessarily mean that you have to cut off or turn off
the spigot because they had a cost override?
I mean, they bargained for, they got loaned
monies up to $5 million, the MOU. Hang on a second.
Let me just pull it up. Just give me one
second. The MOU says that that's the wrong one.
That's the wrong page. At 3.1 budget approval included
you can't make this stuff any smaller. Included as
schedule 2, GSLM provides a budget hereby acknowledged by
Smart Win showing the plan allocation of funds advanced by
Smart Win in accordance with Clause 2. Any alterations to
the budget must also be approved by Smart Win in writing.
GSLM will provide upon written requests copies of
invoices, contracts and confirmations of payments to
enable Smart Win to verify disbursements are in accordance
with the approved schedule.
Nothing in there that says if you go over the
budget we'll turn off the spigot. Just says we give you
the money, we want documentation to make sure that that's
being paid to the right vendor and proper vendor and it's
within the budget.
MR. OCCHIPINTI: But the note.
THE COURT: But it doesn't say that if you go
over the budget we will turn off the money.



CLEARLY CLEARLY CLEARLY the judge is indicating that SW did not have the right to stop the funding, according to the MOU…it would have been a different story if SW had lived up to their obligation to fund $5 mill…but they did not…

the beginning of the end will start for SW the week of april 13, 2015…its clear from the transcript that the judge has stated what he sees(according to NY law), and its very likely that not only will SW be out the $3.9 mill, but very well could be assessed damages(according to the transcript above…doesn't matter if there is a JV or not , the judge allowed a VERY important counter suit motion to continue…read it for yourself...