Excalibur v GKP - Court Day 26 - Unofficial Report

14:00 3/12/12
Re: UBS Lawyers - What's The Source?

a4tlo

Well my opinion is its probably Erics WS reference his UBS employer asked him to gather certain. Documents maybe title, which they possibly did not.

Either way it looks like we have a little more meat on the bone, to discredit the Wempens case.

TK has his tie on,he's just walked past with a modern and a beaming smile, he's answering all quest Direct not stalling, he's not as sleek as his big Brother .

But on the whole seems to being control.

SP, has drawn a picture that GKP has gained riches since entering kurdistan, wouldn't be there without RW involvement, TK says the deal wasTaq Taq which had been taken when they went to Kurdistan, lots of share price coverage from 05 to date.
Lots of talk about BILLIONS OF BARRELS. Values etc.

Stef

23:23
Court Notes - Mon 3 Dec

BiggerPicture

Court notes – Mon - 03/12/2012

Really struggled to hear today, both Simon & Todd spoke softly. So may have missed more than usual!

Usual caveats apply:

Everything I report on below is subject to my own fallibility. Taking notes, whilst listening and not being legally trained could lead to any number of mistakes in my account below both in the essence and my understanding of the events in court today. Where it’s my own opinion I’ve mentioned, usually in brackets. I’ve also tried to include some exchanges word for word verbatim to give you a flavour of proceedings – again these may not be exactly correct, only the court transcript could be used for that purpose. Finally, a lot of it I have documented ‘as it happened’ rather than my reflections from the day – hopefully some rich material to pick over. Please read together with other attendees accounts to fill in gaps or add more meat to the bone. Please double check and cross reference names, dates etc. Sorry for any spelling/grammar mistakes.

I hope that the notes are helpful for the majority of shareholders who can't attend these proceedings.

I plan to attend the majority of court sessions where possible and will supply my notes in good faith. If anyone feels they want to chip in to help cover travel costs drop me an email at madiba201@gmail.com.

PLEASE NOTE – I won't be in court tomorrow afternoon, but will try to attend the morning session.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MC – Affidavit served by Eric's boss, to be part of TKI evidence. Relates to oral evidence given by Eric, not in written statement. To contradict Wempen's evidence, not originated from UBS Energy Group. Ask to recall Mr Wempen to address.

Judge – you want to admit evidence?

MC – yes, and challenge under CPR..33.3.2? Because not part of witness statement but come up under oral evidence (some further discussion about this...)

SP – circumstances how obtained to be looked into, if submitted would like to respond.

MC – no need to recall, but contradicts evidence

Judge – not refuse to entertain

SP – disclosure witness statement, intent to rely on, even thought dropped (sorry, missed this bit)

Todd called to witness box and sworn in

Reference to TK witness statements, with signature, factual corrections to previous statements

JG – evidence & witness statements true to best of believe?

TK – yes

JG – Day 8 point arised, on instruction by TK. Did KRG ever ask to see copy of CA?

TK – No

Handed over to Simon Picken (SP)

Reference to statement of truth – signed by Mr Rams (GKP legal), signed by TK – relates to version of defence served 26/01/12 - “on or about 24 Nov 2007 asked KRG to add Exc to PSC”

SP – word 'about' added. Words now crossed out, but signed as truth at time.

TK – believed picture at time

Ref to article Daily Telegraph – Mason - Energy Correspondent (30/12/10)

TK – my knowledge, correspondence with KRG, not qualified

SP – ref to above?

TK – No, other correspondence to ministry

SP – What other correspondence?

TK – do not know...(?)

SP – as public company have to state truth to public

TK – true at time referred to Memery Crystal

SP – Never sought to correct

TK – No

SP – must have thought was accurate, only correspondence in mind must be letter of 27th November

TK – maybe correct

SP – refer to April injunction, Judge Gloster. Mr Rams witness statement served on behalf of Gulf 'on 24/11 wrote to minister....approval never given'

Copy of letter in bundle (reported)

SP – would have worked with Mr Rams

TK - many docs, can't recall everything

SP - did you know this was stated at the time?

TK – don't recall

SP – aware of witness statement at time was served

TK – probably, need to look at it

Ref to letter 24/11

Ref TK witness statement – 'Exc had chance, but never sought approval, never had funds'

SP – refer to 24/11 letter (missed rest of question)

TK – absolutely not, because of knowledge of last 2 years

SP – heavy reliance on 24/11 letter. KRG wont have Exc, until 5th witness statement

TK – absolutely not. Don’t understand question.

SP – now say this was wrong. Not 2007, but 2009

TK – minister asked for copy

SP – not provided in 2007

TK – yes

SP – 2 emails from Ashti received by mistake, after 5th witness statement. Remember timing?

TK – no

SP – suggest approach to evidence unsatisfactory, agree?

TK – no

SP – why?

TK – believed at time correct, memory not perfect, made mistake and admit it

SP – media report reason Exc excluded...remember?

TK – yes, believed right at time

Ref Times article- 'contract lapsed in Feb 2007'

SP – remember saying to journalist?

TL – may have

SP – why say lapsed Feb 07

TK – believed lapsed in summer 07

SP – why said February

TK – may have misspoken, part of article not true, announcements to company correct

Ref Financial times (30/12/10) – 'ended in 2007...haven’t heard from these guys since first week 2007'

SP – who are these guys?

TK – Exc, Rex

SP – maintain correct?

TL – yes

SP – GKP, or personally?

TK – me

SP – discussions between TKI and yourself continues, 5 Dec 08, made offer to farm in, aware?

TK – accept that yes

SP – 2009 discussion with Ashti about Exc

TK – yes

SP – so not heard nonsense

TK – (missed this bit)

Judge – misleading, no contact, then out of blue, lawyers in contact through 2008

TK – took question literally, me personally

Judge – indirect contact?

TK – yes

Judge – was what Financial times questioned

TK – asked if had contact, believed not

Judge – but you had contact

TK – yes

SP – offer of farm in and bringing claim, remember

TK – yes

Ref 5 Dec 08 letter

Ref Financial Times article – complete surprise

SP – complete surprise when you know there has been contact

TK – (missed his answer)

SP – impression trying to give bad claim with reasons

TK – what I believed at time

SP – refer to correspondence to ministry, not heard from them, wrong

TK – not from my point of view

SP – what point of view? Explain

TK – thought they talked about Exc and Wempens, not lawyers

SP – how Kurdistan fits into GK success story. Kurdistan led to GKP success

TK – yes

SP – pre-Kurdistan focus Algeria

TK – yes

Ref Board minutes Dec 2005 – Bus development...Sudan, UAC..etc

SP – no ref to Kurdistan

TK – no

SP – looking outside Algeria?

TK – yes

Ref interim results Oct 2005, ref to 9 block Algeria. Refer to Market Cap. Cash balance $79m at time

SP – compare with current position

Ref 2011 Financial review – cash at 31 Oct (?) $237.6m

Ref RNS 14/09/11. TK – '..in addition...MC £1.2b...'

SP – as of today share price £1.95 – now £1.75b based on shares

SP – all down to Kurdistan

TK – yes, took all the risk

SP – Exited Algeria 2009, correct?

TK – (missed)

Ref 2011 accounts – Timeline...Jul 2009, exit from Algeria. May 2010 – Algeria relinquished. Another reference about Algeria exit

SP – so all assets in Algeria?

TK – yes, decided to focus on assets with better possibilities

SP – exit starter earlier

TK – yes

SP - reason for exit

TK – difficult to operate

SP – any remaining assets?

TK – awaiting financial confirmation

Ref GKP corporate overview 08/01/2008 (after Shaikan/AB signed)

SP – MC today £1.76. More than in above doc

TK – yes

Ref to share price graph. 60p 2007, 40p June 2007, (about time RAK fell through), 30p end Oct, small rise Nov 07, stalls further, 32p January

Ref Bloomberg share about GKP 2008

SP – share price stays at 30p, drops to teens because recession

Ref another chart, slight rise, sharp rise Jul/Aug

SP – seismic results in mean time, nothing like rapid rise of funding all

TK – SP depressed on economic, plus markets view of risk, market did not give value to contracts

Ref Bloomberg graph 2010. Drop to 70p, leap to 190p. Low point Aug 90p, high £2. Feb shoots up to over £4. Down £1.50 up again close Fri £1.95

SP – what this shows (over all years) dramatic 600% increase in SP

TK – also demonstrate immense volatility

SP – demonstrates (missed this part)

BREAK

Ref GKP strategy 08/01/08. Strategy market drivers...

SP – to get bigger & increase cash position. 2 ways, organic & structural growth

TK – yes

SP - “Kurdish region potential world class” - used in various communications, ref to aims etc to drill

Ref - “Key facts” - last large onshore....prospect 100-300mb

SP – referring to Shaikan, similar prospect with MOL

TK – respectable

SP - compare with current, Shaikan 12.4b – 15b

TK – on optimistic side yes

SP – AB 2.5 – 4.5b – DGA report

TK – yes

SP – value of Shaikan measured in billions

TK – valued by market cap, valuation matrix not correct in Kurdistan, market values differently

SP - £1.7b based on current share price. So looking at billions not millions – so underestimated in documents

TK – have privilege of hindsight in court. No doubt Shaikan greater than expected

SP – no involvement in Kurdistan before Rex

TK – not apart from 1 conversation

SP – sole focus on Algeria, Canada, US

TK – always looking at opportunities, operational focus in Algeria, but always looking

SP – Kurdistan limited, next to zero

TK – correct

Ref witness statement - David Clarke (geologist, interim Ops manager, taken over by Macatish) mentioned Iraq to TK at some point

SP - Iraq rather than Kurdistan

TK - Kirkuk, depends who you talk to

SP - not keen

TK - from GKP yes, security already concern in Algeria, not nice things on CNN at time

SP - Rex already there (reference to some photo)

SP - GKP any presence?

TK - no

SP - so if Rex not brought opportunity, would not be there

TK - yes, was worth a look. Would have been approached at some time

SP - you would not have become involved if not for Rex

TK - he brought idea, not to say we would not have considered ourselves

SP - GKP now prospering because of Rex

TK - Gulf prospering because took risk. Don't dispute to give credit to Rex. He brought idea

SP - ...(missed)

JG - objection - not a memory test

TK - recognised they introduced us

SP - you saying Taq Taq opportunity not available, what Rex brought

TK - believe joint bidding document

SP - a lot of criticism, no recognition, do you want to make further comment

TK - no

SP - you personally done well

TK - well compensated

Ref Mr Cooper email (FD) July 2006 - TK $675k salary, share options 2,650k

Recent package (different scale) - basic salary remains $675k, share bonus scheme 09/10/11, cash bonus $2.75m. Total $22.23m (£13m). Compare 2010 £9.76m

Ref Exit event bonus award - TK - 300 000 shares = £600k @ today’s price. Payable when 50% sold

TK - sale of company or change of control

SP - very wealthy man as result of Kurdistan

TK - became wealthy man

SP - substantially better rewarded than anyone else, 4 fold difference

TK - determined by remuneration committee

SP - if Exc win, your position would be untenable? Because of case brought

TK - would have to speak to board

SP - would affect you personally

TK - yes

Ref first meeting TK/Rex Dec 2005, witness statement - 'First heard of Exc through Qabandi through Kinear''

SP - Qabandi - Business development director?

TK - yes

SP - no role with TKI

TK - no

SP - contact on behalf of Gulf

TK - no, believed contact because of my US position. Ali Qabandi.

SP - still at Gulf? What capacity

TK - yes, member of board

SP - did he ever leave?

TK - yes, before AIM listing

SP - why not giving evidence

TK - determined by solicitors

SP - can be called as witness?

TK - cant see why not (paraphrased)

Ref email Kinear to Rex 15/12/05 - contacted company that meets criteria

SP - assume contact with Qabandi

TK - think so

SP - Kinear describe as US, Algerian, not solely US

TK - description inaccurate

Ref Kinear email Qabandi next day (copy Rex) - giving Rex Ali contact details at Gulf, suggests to call.

Todd receives email later.

SP - Gulf BDM telling Gulf CEO to meet up, no reference to TKI

TK - no

SP - should Qabandi not have stated TKI if involved

TK - very little info at time, job to pass on info

SP -for Gulf

TK - yes, but knew had other business interests

Email Kinear to Wempen. Wempen to Kinear 'meeting went well with Ali, meeting have CEO stateside'

SP - looks rather Gulf orientated

TK - agree no mention of TKI, approached and passed on

Ref Rex witness statement - ' can work together with Texas in partnership with Gulf.'

SP - consistent with above

TK - consistent to what I said, well paid BDM to pass on opportunities

SP - not witness here, correct what Rex states

TK - don’t recall....?

SP - Gulf deal with TKI as US lead

TK - No....(missed)

SP - Kinear dead, any contact with him in connection with Exc claim

TK - discussed Exc, sure would have talked about it, was eager to make some sort of money

SP - so after claim was lodged

TK - yes

SP - will come back to that

TK - met him when he was ill, sometime 2011

Ref witness statements

Judge - when did he die?

SP - some point 2011

Email Rex to Qabandi and Todd - 18 Dec - let me know schedule, look like will be back

SP - did you speak

TK - yes

Ref witness statements

SP - arranged 22 Dec meeting Tampa lunch

TK - yes

SP - took only notes, email recording meeting

TK - no

(Todd picked up Rex from airport, went for lunch)

SP - Rex told you KRG wanted US company

TK - he told me he wanted

SP - what was it?

TK - Rex wanted US oil company, had opportunity to secure license if had

SP - deal with OPIC...would help with US co

TK - yes

Ref GKP minutes 2007 p 670 - Kurdistan heading. p 671, TK stated Ashti wanted US co, may need TKI to come on with minority interest...

SP - at what stage did you learn KRG wanted US co?

TK - understood all along, KRG wanted US co, late summer 07 Hunt deal

Judge - did you understand why KRG would US

TK - economic and political, wanted to build relationship with US

Judge - political? Grateful for what US has done?

TK - yes, for what coalition has done, led by US

SP - so witness statement refers to these reasons. TKI domestic oil co, never operated outside US other than Canada.

TK - not correct, operated for Gulf in Algeria and UAE logistically, operationally.

SP - secondment don’t give company experience

TK - not secondment, under management contract

SP - TKI set up by family, never intended to go outside US?

TK - big in US

SP - suddenly Qabandi opportunity, Texas not Gulf

TK - yes

SP - three way consortium... (missed)

SP - wanted company with international experience.

TK - Rex was focussed on US company, no other due diligence.

Judge - done Gulf once, see no reason couldn't do again. What did you mean?

TK - set up Gulf from family business, could see no reason why could be done again

SP - why saying that

TK - because Gulf didn’t qualify as US

SP - why not saying in witness statement. Could have set up new company. Making that up

TK - not at all

SP - ...(missed)

TK - told Rex have to speak to Gulf board, may be conflict of interest

Ref witness statement - '...Rex always aware distinction Gulf and TKI...'

SP - you told Rex representing TKI

TK - for Rex was only possible because Gulf not US

SP - did you tell him?

TK - told him I was there on behalf of TKI to satisfy his request

SP - you did not hake it clear

TK - disagree

LUNCH

SP - accept Rex wanted to partner with Gulf and TKI

TK - don't accept, didn't know structures

SP - did you make clear not representing Gulf, only TKI

TK - yes

Witness statement - discuss possibility Gulf could participate later

TK - explained conflict of interest

SP - never mentioned previously, why not?

TK - (missed)

SP - Rex said split between Gulf and TKI worked out later, corrections

TK - did not agree terms or structure

SP - Rex said 50/50 split, deny? GKP % worked out late

TK - yes

Ref Todd witness statement '...are fanciful...'

SP - strong words, stand by that?

TK - yes

SP - natural fit for GKP

TK - only talked about opportunity for US flagged company

Rex witness statement - '...ideal opportunity for GKP...'

Board minutes - (missed)

SP - fits entirely

TK - not correct, Rex wanted US company

Ref Florida proceedings - way beyond financial and technical capabilities of Texas. Not in budget of Texas (2007)

SP - Texas capabilities same at 2007

TK - not correct

SP - reference to business profile of Texas

TK - risk became too high

SP - are you saying Kurdistan higher risk in 07 compared to 05

TK - no way to assess risk on 1 lunch. No idea what was.

SP - Texas never had capability for Kurdistan

TK - ...set up to do...? Ability to access

SP - what do you mean

TK - can start another company

SP - not shared with Rex at meeting, never mentioned anywhere else

TK - Texas was natural home as US company

SP - understand putting to you

TK - yes, disagree

Reference divorce proceedings - 'owns % of TKI, member of Falcon'

SP - 'never conduct business on behalf of these companies.' Contradicts saying now

TK - don't consider informal informative lunch meeting as conducting business

AP - acting on behalf of Gulf

TK - no

SP - Robert CEO of TKI at time

TK - yes

SP - Rex never met any other members of family

TK - no

SP - radical change of strategy, yet no curiosity to meet Rex

TK - yes

SP - TKI main operator (missed)

TK - not correct, never discussed who would be operator, naturally TKI because US

SP - never said acting for TKI

TK - why I was there, as US company

TK witness statement - '...possibility Gulf joining only arised month later...'

SP - did you coming into meeting give thought of possibility Gulf to be part of deal

TK - no

SP - when

TK - January

SP - denied discussed at meeting

TK - yes

SP - when possibility occurred

TK - Jan in meeting with Gulf

SP - did you tell brothers and father you were having meeting

TK - don’t think so

SP - so not CEO, didn’t see reason to involve

TK - yes

SP - when did potential conflict of interest occur?

TK - early Jan 2006

Judge - when you met Rex Dec 05, was there any reference to conflict of interest

TK - explained CEO of gulf, have inform...(missed)

SP - did it not occur at earlier point?

TK - no

SP - conflict arises, Gulf BDM put opportunity to you, you treat as TKI opportunity, that's real conflict of interest

TK - that is what conflict was

Ref email 23/12 - draft JV agreement between Exc and Gulf Keystone. Eric to Todd (after Rex meeting)

SP - no mention of Texas

TK - no

SP - surprised to see Gulf, no mention Texas

TK - surprised to see email at all, were going to have a think, Rex normal excited statements
SP - hindsight observation

SP - party described as Ex and TKI (US)/Gulf (Bermuda)

TK - didn't even get names right

Ref witness statement - (something about mistakes on company names)

SP - must have noticed mistake

TK - ignored document, looked at it. Not the way we did things at company. Was non starter

SP - non starter, serious about that evidence? Was what you put forward for draft CA

SP - did or did not notice ref to GKP?

TK - probably

SP - 3 way JV deal.

TK - only after informal lunch. Yes 3 names appear

SP - nearest record send to you by Eric/Rex/ Refer to 3 way deal

TK - yes, but wasn't wheat I had in mind

SP - why never went back

TK - did eventually, not at time our Christmas

SP - you received email with draft referring to Gulf, didn't think anything because reflected discussion

TK - not true

SP - deal 'Keystone' refers to TKI and Gulf

TK - not true

SP - (missed)

Ref to another doc - (missed)

SP - could have corrected misunderstanding

TK - not at Christmas, generally don’t respond

Email Rex to Todd 23/12 - forward Eric email. '...Look forward to working with you....'

SP - could have corrected

TK - not same sense of priority and urgency as Rex (your client)

Rex email ....forwards DNO report, oil strike

Rex witness statement - telephone conversation with Rex that day

SP - you spoke

TK - don't recall

Day after Christmas Rex to Todd - still meeting in Florida for BBQ

SP - looks likely

TK - can admit to BBQ invite

SP - can admit if concerned about Gulf, could have raised

TK - could have if spent time looking in 48hr time period

SP - did you

TK - no

SP - what you saying is made up I'm afraid

Email 27 Dec read receipt

Witness statement - 'agreement made no sense to me...'

SP - involved keystone

TK - could be investment company

SP - what's timing (not made sense to me)

TK - couldn't imaging after one hour lunch have JV agreement

SP - (missed)

TK - when looked at it

SP - 25 Dec or sometime later

TK - when I opened email

SP - share thoughts with anyone at Gulf or TKI?

TK - may have discussed with Bill

SP - when

TK - in new year, everyone back at work

SP - (missed)

TK - remember telling Rex he had no understanding and no idea what was required, let alone exploration

SP - new evidence, again, no record before

SP - before or after Christmas.

TK - (missed)

SP - refers to Keystone, who referring to? Single entity setting JV company

TK - referring to his proposal

SP - reflects through process at time?

TK - (missed)

SP - making up

TK - not correct

SP - Qabandi under impression Gulf opportunity

TK - (missed)

JG objected...(silence)

Judge - witness statement 'made it very clear' statement said at meeting

SP - fair enough. Discussed meeting with Qabandi

TK - yes

Email Qabandi to Kinear - 'Directed Rex to discuss with ourTodd in states'

Response to email Kinear to Qabandi - please update me, Gulfstone and Rex

SP - so Kinear Gulfstone...our Todd in the states, viewed as Gulf Keystone deal. Acknowledge?

TK - its all Texas, they have relationship. I have privilege of wearing two hats.

Email Todd to Rex (29/12) - "...our London office closed since last Thu....business development on 3 separate continents..."

SP - don't tell Rex wrong entity here

TK - no

SP - London office, referring to Gulf, TKI never had office

TK - referring to Gulf because still to speak to Gulf

SP - so where conflict of interest arise? Development managers Gulf, correct?

TK - yes, referring to own Gulf office

SP - to get agreement between Exc & Gulf up and running?

TK - wasn't going to happen quickly, lots of things were going to happen upfront

SP - really your position Texas

TK - yes

Rex email to Kinear - "in Todd's hands now....on track....Dubai..."

SP - reference to Dubai reference to Gulf?

TK - reference to general misunderstanding that prevailed, Gulf had no business in Dubai

SP - one Gulf board member resided in Dubai. Who is reference to then? Considering Kinears connection is Qabandi.

TK - don;t know

SP you were in States, no time difference, so clearly referring to Gulf deal

TK - had to talk to Gulf & Texas, can;t speak for Kinear here

SP - they (Qabandi/Kinear) had good relationship

TK - personal relationship, not business relationship

SP - did Gulf ever have board meeting in Dubai?

TK - ...(missed)

AFTERNOON BREAK

Reference to London Office email

SP - reference to get back to him on proposed agreement

TK - not refer to specifically get back to him

SP - why involving Gulf's contractual lawyers?

TK - don't view as conflict

Email Kinear to Rex (6 Jan) - "Todd keen to go, waiting on board"

SP - Kinear understanding from Qabandi. No member of Texas board

Judge - ...(missed)

SP - reference to Gulf board

TK - don't know what he's referring

SP - be honest, refer to Gulf board

TK - not true

Email Kinear to Todd - " talking to Ali in London office"

SP - "Gulf Keystone may be interested"

TK - Kinear introduced to US

SP - emphasize "Gulf Keystone", why didn't you correct?

TK - don't make point to quibble stuff like this

SP - you never went back, because that is what was discussed

TK - Kinear thought Gulf was US company, was confused

Judge - instructed by Kinear?

TK - up to us to work out issue

Email Kinear - concerned Kurdistan project fall through, fail to meet criteria

SP - all references to GKP, surprised?

TK - didn't raise alarms, knew what proposal was and had to do.

SP - why didn't correct?

TK - didn't have good handle on what was going on at time

SP - said worried about conflict of interested

TK - no conflict with Kinear

SP - reference to Ali Qabandi being Arab, why not concerned at time as he was Gulf

TK - misinformed

Kinear to Rex - "spoken to Ali....Qabandi lining up company president"

SP - Reference to Bill Guest, president of Gulf?

TK - assumed so, meeting never happened, another Kinear...

Kinear to Rex (8 Jan) - "board meeting last week....Mr Guest agreed to travel with...."

SP - reference to Gulf. Kinear wrong end of stick, your evidence?

TK - not had Gulf board meeting at time, could trust Bill at time, had child. Was not trip to Kurdistan

SP - board meeting not true

TK - miss personal relationships at time

SP - is Qabandi reliable?

TK - yes

SP - won't lie to Kinear?

TK - no

SP - is he precise?

TK - he has his moments. Accurate and very honest

SP - "I have spoken to all concerned" - reference to Ali Qabandi?

TK - stretch if refers to 1 person

SP - Qabandi's statement likely to be accurate

Email Qabindi to Kinear (Todd copied) - "understand need for white face...."

SP - viewed as 3 way deal

SP - email from Qabindi inconsistent with evidence

TK - Wempen was adamant needed US company, when putting these deals together, anything possible

SP - "consistent with Rex evidence, inconsistent with yours" (deal with Texas and GKP feasible)

TK - my understanding at time US only

SP - Rex evidence consistant what Qabandi says

TK - I stick with my evidence, US flag company, seems to be confusion from Kinear & Wempen how to be put together, why agreement excluded Gulf

SP - why never corrected?

TK - didn;t have sense of urgency at time

SP - evidence made up

TK - completely incorrect

Rex email to Todd (Monday)...

SP - appears you spoke to Rex on Qabandi email

TK - don't remember

SP - made no effort to correct misunderstanding

TK - assuming read email

Ref email Bill Guest to Todd - "frustrated Rex on phone, please call asap"

SP - contacting Gulf's president, comment?

TK - no

SP - you sent draft JOA to Guest, why? Why not to father & brother?

Judge - which was draft JOA

TK - CA sent by Rex

SP - not sent to anyone at Texas?

TK - don't know

SP - sent to real party, Gulf, where you are CEO and Guest president

TK - no, fully authorised by Texas to act on foreign oil deals

SP - Guest would have had draft with GKP/Texas

TK - if just forwarded, yes

SP - so he sees proposal for 3 way deal (Gulf/Texas/Exc)

TK - had discussion by this time

TK witness statement - "recall having informal conversations with Bill Guest...."

SP - in US at time?

TK - believe so

SP - nothing (emails) indicate having these discussions at time

TK - telephone conversations

(something about Iraq risks, not appealing to Gulf)

Reference to Business Development document - countries listed, UAE, Sudan....

SP - Sudan? Not complete answer

TK - disagree

SP - Gulf were looking outside Algeria, Kurdistan fitted bill

TK - at time disagree

Todd witness statement - "draft board minutes" - never signed June 2006

SP - why not signed?

TK - meant to be included in board meeting

SP - so no board meeting took place

TK - ...(missed answer)

Reference Ian Patrick to Bill Guest - on eve of 1st visit to Erbil (June 2006) - Gulf Keystone Board minutes

SP - very last minute, exploring how minutes came to be produced. Recording something not yet happened at board meeting.

TK - formulating what's to be discussed

SP - if had been meeting where discussed, no need to scurry around to formulate

TK - had verbal discussions at time

SP - if no minutes before, no discussion before

TK - could have discussions outside board meetings

SP - who would record?

TK - Ian Patrick

SP - you wouldn't go outside

TK - No

Reference to board minutes - 16/6/2006 - signed ND - refer to Nick D at Memery Crystal

SP - why did he draft?

TK - special situation, I was going to do something for Texas under Gulf, suggested to do this way to protect me and company

SP - 16 June 2006, timing 14:03. Date of email 13:07. Email sent how before attachment produced

JG - Objection - happens various occasions where attachments arrive later

JG - timetable received for Clifford Chance, well into March 2013, completely unreasonable. Need to address, will provide shortened version.

Judge -10:30 starts, sit Fridays

SP - provided timetable, disappointed issue raised, should share combined thinking

Judge - sit 10 am tomorrow, serve papers as come forward

END OF DAY