Valid Questions about Legal Representation

Via Email; we were asked on the position of Churchill Mining changing Legal Representation. Specifically relating to: Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia (ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40) PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 4 Item 5  

5.0 informed the Tribunal in ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 that Churchill Mining would no longer be represented by Hogan Lovells International LLP (“Hogan Lovells”) and that Messrs. Stephen Jagusch, Anthony Sinclair, and Epaminontas Triantafilou of Quinn Emanuel had been designated as its new representatives.

5.3 By letter of letter of January 24, 2013, Quinn Emanuel also informed the Tribunal in ICSID Case No. ARB/12/40 that Planet Mining would no longer be represented by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (“Freshfields”) and that Messrs. Stephen Jagusch, Anthony Sinclair, and Epaminontas 

It's clear there's been a consolidation of the cases and if people know Quinn Emanuel, like Freshfields, they deal with complex cases. I cannot speculate on costings as I'm not informed on them but have but I'm sure they're similar. You could say risks have increased by the change, however its more than likely a consolidation of claims and costs than anything risky that would require a review. Surely the other representatives wouldn't have advise no suitable claim after assessing and then filing the claims. Notwithstanding, Nicholas Smith has a good understanding of International Arbitration.

Thank you for putting the view point forward Paul; it's not a bad question more that it needs to be considered.

Be informed: 

Current Legal: Quinn Emanuel Website (Lead) 

Previous Legal: Hogan Lovells Jonathan Ketcheson

I'm sure both have significant experience and a change sometimes is better, but likewise from an investment perspective it needs to be considered. 

Fraser

Where some dare to tread! Lucian Miers Video on You Tube

Lucian Miers (10minutes in) on You Tube

Thanks to D for sending this to Fraser. I have made a comment, because this man is asserting he's taken legal advice on Churchill Mining's case and has concluded that it's worthless. It not only shows he knows nothing about International Arbitration but worst, people whom clearly don't check the facts could have lost as a result. He infers the lawyer knows about International Arbitration Claims but if that was the case, would you have gone short? For those reading, and having done research, what percentage fail at International Arbitration? Especially as Churchill can clearly show their case?

Does it mean Churchill Mining are Guaranteed to win? Not at all, but there's a higher chance of success than failure. He may profit on his short at 20pence in Churchill of the term of the case because stocks in Legal Cases have a habit of drifting and spiking along the way, but likewise, people whom have invested of the past 2 years should have no capital risk on their investment now; you should have taken 4 fold profit at the very least via Spreadbets, CFD and stock.

I look forward to seeing 'Lucian Miers' inform and educate himself on International Arbitration...it's not for anyone to educate others but inform themselves of the risks, the same with Oxus Plc, Rurelec Plc any case for that matter. 

Ian/Fraser (I've adapted Fraser's email to me haha)

What's needed...with Churchill that they should be doing around now (The Funding Situation)

When we were looking at Churchill and its Cash situation, it was clear they needed monies to fund the Company going forward. The concern though is that they we're still short of funds to take the case through to its conclusion...my estimate was around £2M/$3M and Ian's was around $8.

The reason for the differences was, Ian's style is more aggressive (or realistic) on the one hand that those putting up $3M may also want a bit more of the cream because they're funding it; so are likely to demand that Churchill accept $8M in various warrants or options or similar. My view was merely what was required in terms of funding the case and not really considering the needs of the Board etc...as this could be completed in various other ways.

So in considering the above, I hope they're 'going to get on the phone' and see what is available. Don't get me wrong it's not dire and there's a lot of other options, but as a shareholder with a vested interest I'd like to see them do a) an open offer or b) a placing around the current price. Of course no one wants to see dilution, but these cases/companies have a habit of rising and falling throughout the process. So I'd rather it on 'better terms' than not so good. 

They could also opt for Third Party Litigation Funding, or perhaps even complete a company bond in the same style, there's many options and some of them as an investor I/Ian and many others would be interested in...similar to Rusoro in essence. 

Does anyone specifically invest in Legal Cases? The benefits are significantly greater than other aim companies out there that sell hope and high board salaries in exchange for a lot of your money...

Have a very good Mothering Sunday for those in America!

All the best, Fraser

Supplemental Memorial Concerning Claim For Damages (RNS March 5th 2013 Investegate)

Do you think a certain well-known shorter is having a hard time of it? I suspect some of the shorts he owned were the longs that we/I had open. Some interesting developments which will also offer the opportunity to trade as well as things progress. International Arbitration have so far outperformed all stocks with the exception of 4 on AIM. That's some going; perhaps investors will wise up and take research seriously, rather than chase the likes of small oilers hoping rather than returning shareholder value. 

Has anyone actually studied the evidence and submissions yet? Is this pointless trying to show people the benefits of international arbitration? Apart from the fact Trollers can't post without authorisation...Positive negaitve, lets here the views. 

Off my soap box, Fraser

There's also another international arbitration claim that's looking very good but will be de-risked by the outcome of Rurelec and Oxus Plc; with the exception of a certain D (you know who you are; you've come to the same conclusions) can anyone name it?

Seems Indonesia is trying to avoid another Churchill: Reuters Article - Intrepid ex-partner flags compensation offer in gold mine dispute

Intrepid ex-partner flags compensation offer in gold mine dispute (Reuters)

Seems Indonesia have another identical issue. What's more is the paltry settlement...The activist investor, in my view, doesn't under the issues or what must be done to win fair value or does it but wants more of the cream? Hmmm

Bolivia defends seizing foreign energy firms - They want people to invest in the country! Ironic...

Bolivia defends seizing foreign energy firms (BBC)

Interesting Read: when looking to find risks in an Arbitration Investment

When reading the Churchill Mining PLC and Planet Mining Pty Ltd v. Republic of Indonesia, ICSID Case No. ARB/12/14 and 12/40 (formerly Churchill Mining PLC v. Republic of Indonesia) for the submissions. It gets very interesting when looking at the Annex A to Procedural Order No. 5 what is know as the Redfern Schedule

Anyone notice what the importance of the disclosure is and what evidence assist parties with investing? This is no spoon feeding