Cath was very kind in giving an update on their investigations...

Cath was very kind in giving an update on their investigations on the matter so Far.  For me personally - if it was genuine then surely it would take so much effort to verify?

Here it is:

I feel I owe you an update on the facts of the situation as they currently stand.

1. We have not been able to verify in country whether this document is bona fide, and do not know (yet) whether this is the document that Upstream cited as their source for the article.
2. The French translation (carried out by our French lawyers) shows the document to be highly flawed and we would be surprised if this was written by any competent lawyer. We have been in contact with M Barry (cited as the Cap contact on the document) and he confirmed he had acted for Cap but would not send us copies of any documentation related to FAR.
3. It would be highly irregular under Senegalese law for a sequester application to be ex parte in this circumstance.
4. It would be highly irregular for a judge in Senegal to assume he has powers to grant a right to seize the assets of an Australian company by a British company. For information, FAR Limited currently does not hold the RSSD asset in a Senegalese company.
5. I re-confirm that we have not been served any papers by Cap nor been contacted by Cap in Senegal or Australia in relation to any seizure notice (Cap have corresponded with us in the past so they are well aware of the contact details for FAR Limited and indeed, our address is correct on the document).
6. We are investigating in country whether there has been any mischievous activity by parties named in the document.
7. The Ministry of Energy and Renewable Resources was not aware of this issue either.
8. I doubt we will be successful in finding the identity of the poster of this article – if any mischief has been found to have taken place then this will be discovered in the course of a legal investigation.

I will reserve my personal view of the situation!


Cath