Woodside want quick resolution to Senegal, page-110

Judge Gilbert presiding...
All seated.
Having heard the concluding arguments, I find for FAR and Petrosen.
It is extraordinary that COP would seek to deny the rights of FAR and Petrosen in this matter, through the use of a sham 'company'.
We find the testimony of the witness WpL unconvincing. If, as WpL suggests, no PE rights are applicable, then how is it that this company is simultaneously arguing that the PE term has expired. For exactly whom has it expired? Not for FAR surely? The company believes that FAR has no PE rights. So is the court expected to believe that someone else has the PE rights to which both WPL and CoP referred in their announcements of the transaction? Little green men from Mars, perhaps?
This purported transaction shall have no effect unless executed with due process, allowing for the PE rights of FAR et al.
All rise.