Both companies statements can be true - and are likely to be....

Both companies statements can be true - and are likely to be. The scenario would be that CAP found some court that has no jurisdiction over its agreement with FAR (which is not formed under Senegalese law), and papers were not served on FAR in a correct manner (hence FAR's statement that no papers have been served). FAR did not appear (as papers were not served correctly). The court appointed a representative for FAR and the court issued the lien which is worthless. I belive that something along these lines is highly likely.

My recollection is that FAR's RSSD stake is not held in Senegal but the first sentence of CAP's announcement suggests that it is - or at least CAP argue that it is.