Why were the shareholders not informed?, page-7

I must express some concern.

On 8th February 2017 I recall seeing and hearing Mr Cottee, say in the webinar that the GRR v CTP matter was being appealed.

I have today been supplied with a copy of the Court of Appeal judgment dismissing CTP appeal against the decision of the Full Bench in the Harris Court matter.

I observe that the date of the judgment being handed down by the Court of Appeal is the 1st February 2018 some 7 days before the 8th February webinar.

There can only be three explanations for the fact that CTP did not inform the shareholders that the CTP Appeal had been dismissed on 1 February 2018.

1) The CTP Lawyers had not been informed by the Court some 7 days previously that the Appeal had been dismissed and therefore could not have informed CTP.

2) 1) The CTP Lawyers had been informed some 7 days previously that the Appeal had been dismissed and did not inform CTP.  

3)  1) That CTP Lawyers had informed CTP that the Appeal had been dismissed but CTP did not release that information to the market.

Now I may be wrong and stand to be corrected, BUT I would have thought that a particular piece of litigation that has been assessed by independent accountants as having a potential $20,000,000.000 ($20 Mil) detrimental affect on the assets of CTP , is a material matter that should have been released to the BOD and the market.

As I say I may be wrong. Others may disagree.

I observe the following ratio of the learned Judges.

"There is certainly no argument or authority in Appellant’s Brief explaining how
Geoscience Resource Recovery, LLC (“GRR”) is somehow required to demonstrate
at the jurisdictional stage that GRR will be able to collect any eventual judgment
against Central Petroleum Limited (traded on the Australian stock exchange as
“CTP”), because that is not the law in Texas.

AND

"An Appellant’s Brief “must contain clear and concise argument for the
contentions made, with appropriate citations to authority and to the record.”  Tex. R.
App. P. 38.1(i).  Rule 38 requires Appellant’s Brief to provide discussion of the facts
and citation to the authorities relied upon to maintain the point at issue.  Collins v.
Walker, 341 S.W.3d 570, 575 (Tex. App. -- Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.).
“This requirement is not satisfied by merely uttering brief, conclusory
statements unsupported by legal citations.”  Id.  “Failure to cite legal authority results
in waiver of the complaint.” Id.; Nguyen v. Kosnoski, 93 S.W.3d 186, 188 (Tex. App. -
Houston [14th Dist.] 2002, no pet.). “Similarly, appellate issues are waived when the
brief fails to contain a clear argument for the contentions made.”"

AND

"Here, Appellant’s Brief failed to present any argument – not even a conclusory
statement -- connecting Australian judgment collection to traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice. Appellant’s Brief likewise fails to cite any authority
connecting the two issues or otherwise explaining the legal relevance of the Australian
collection proceedings.  CTP waived the issue. "

AND

"CTP bears the “difficult” burden of showing that proceeding in Texas will not
comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Opinion at 28.
This requires CTP to show that trial in Texas would effectively deprive CTP of its day
in court.  Id. CTP has failed to make that showing"

AND

"Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing claims (at page 9) that GRR is asking the
Court to presume an implied finding of CTP assets located outside of Australia, but
that misplaces CTP’s burden. When CTP attempts to defeat jurisdiction by claiming
that GRR’s judgment will never be enforceable against CTP, then it is CTP’s burden
to establish: (a) that CTP does not have any tangible or intangible assets outside of
Australia which could be the subject of enforcement, (b) that CTP will never have
assets outside of Australia during the enforceable life of GRR’s hypothetical
judgment, and (c) that the Australian courts will indeed decline to enforce GRR’s
judgment against CTP.  See Opinion at 28 (burden on CTP).  "

AND

"At CTP’s behest, the Australian court declined to abate that later-filed
proceeding in favor of this Texas proceeding, and thus contemplates a race to
judgment.  See Australian opinion attached as Exhibit A to CTP’s November 22, 2017
"

CB