Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eurasia and Commonwealth appeal Scots court ruling over Azerb oil

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eurasia and Commonwealth appeal Scots court ruling over Azerb oil

    Eurasia and Commonwealth appeal Scots court ruling over Azerbaijan oil
    dispute

    Sunday Herald
    11:33pm Saturday 23rd February 2008

    TWO sparring oil companies in dispute over access to oil and gas reserves in
    Azerbaijan are heading to a Scottish court next year in a bitter
    conflict-of-interest dispute over the oil riches of the wild Caucasus region.
    The companies concerned - Eurasia Energy, based in Peterhead, and
    Commonwealth Oil & Gas Company, which is a subsidiary of London-based Arawak Energy -
    are in dispute over access to a 600 square-kilometre exploration block in the
    shallow waters of the Caspian Sea in the former Soviet republic.
    Azerbaijan, the epicentre of the so-called "Wild East", is a country with
    proven reserves of crude oil of between seven and 13 billion barrels, according
    to the US Department of Energy. The country, which borders Iran, Armenia,
    Georgia and Russia, has huge potential in the eyes of Western exploration and
    production companies following the completion of Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline
    in 2006.
    Despite a three-week hearing at the Court of Session in Edinburgh last
    September, the dispute between Eurasia and Commonwealth is far from over. Last
    week both Eurasia and Commonwealth declared they would appeal aspects of the
    judgement issued by Lord Reed on December 14. They are due to return to court in
    March next year.
    At the centre of the dispute is the Peterhead-based oil executive, Nicholas
    Baxter, president and chief executive of Toronto-listed Eurasia Energy since
    November 2005. Baxter was one of the first Western entrepreneurs to tie-up oil
    and gas deals in Azerbaijan after it broke from the USSR in 1991.
    Baxter is contesting the decision of the court that he was in breach of his
    fiduciary duties as a non-executive director of Commonwealth Oil & Gas.
    The judge ruled Baxter secured exploration and development rights to a
    600sq-km block from the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan (Socar) on behalf of
    Eurasia, of which he had recently become chief executive. This was in breach of
    his obligation to Commonwealth, where he was still a non-executive director.
    Giving evidence, Alastair McBain, chief executive of Commonwealth's parent,
    Arawak Energy, said he was "stunned" to hear that Baxter had taken rights to
    the concession to a rival company. Even though McBain had earlier squeezed
    Baxter out of executive responsibilities at Arawak/Commonwealth, he believed
    that Baxter's ultimate loyalty would continue to be to that company, since
    Baxter was one of Arawak's biggest shareholders, with a 3% stake. At today's share
    price that holding is worth £6.2 million.
    Since Eurasia does not appear to have materially benefited from its
    memorandum of understanding with Socar, the whole court drama may in any case be
    academic.
    In February 2007, Eurasia failed to reach an agreement with Socar to extend
    its rights to explore the so-called Alat-Deniz block.
    Commonwealth, for its part, has cross-appealed the element of Lord Reed's
    decision in Eurasia's favour - namely that, as an alleged knowing recipientof
    confidential information given in breach of fiduciary duty, Eurasia should
    compensate Commonwealth for loss of profits due to have come its way.
    Commonwealth was originally seeking damages of some $117m (about £60m) asa result of
    this.
    But Baxter is contesting the ruling that he was in breach of his fiduciary
    duties as a director of Commonwealth.
    Jim Cormack, a partner in law firm McGrigors, which is acting for both Baxter
    and Eurasia, said: "Basically the judge said that he had found in favour of
    Baxter and Eurasia on all the material, factual issues. The judge found that
    if there was a breach of fiduciary duty it was not knowingly done."
    In these circumstances, the civil action, even after the appeal, seems more
    likely to benefit future generations of lawyers rather than the sparring
    partners as the case sets interesting precedents on the fiduciary duties of
    directors. Meanwhile, both Eurasia and Commonwealth are likely to find themselves
    deeply out of pocket.

    From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Working...
X