The American Energy Group Ltd. (“American Energy”; OTCQB: AEGG.PK; Pinksheets: AEGG.PK) has issued a press release regarding the litigation with Hycarbex Inc and Hycarbex Asia and the resultant orders of the Court. This press release has been widely published in international media. In its press release, American Energy has clearly misrepresented the orders of the Court and has attempted to mislead the general public, including American Energy’s own shareholders, with respect to precise nature and scope of the orders. It has therefore been considered expedient and advisable that a necessary clarification be issued outlining the precise nature of the outcome of aforesaid litigation.
American Energy filed a petition along with enabling applications in the Court with the following prayers:
i. In the civil suit (main petition) the relief sought by American Energy was that Hycarbex Inc and Hycarbex Asia be ordered to file original arbitration agreement in the Court and the parties be directed to refer the matter to arbitration under the ICC Rules of Arbitration.
ii. In the first miscellaneous application, American Energy sought temporary injunction against sale, transfer, assignment or alienation of working interest under the Yasin Concession. It was further prayed that Hycarbex Inc be ordered to disclose particulars of bank accounts and restrain from removing any money from such accounts. Lastly and most importantly, it was prayed that Hycarbex Inc be ordered to pay 18% of gross revenues to American Energy.
iii. In the second miscellaneous application, it was prayed that a receiver be appointed to receive and secure all revenues and pay the 18% gross revenues therefrom to American Energy. It was further prayed that the receiver may be directed to provide American Energy and the Court the complete records and operations of Hycarbex Inc regarding gas production from the Haseeb Gas Field (Yasin Concession), and that Hycarbex Inc be directed to forthwith pay 18% gross revenues to American Energy; otherwise the receiver may be appointed to take over the operations of the Yasin Concession and operate the same under the direction of the Court.
As against the relief which was sought by American Energy in above terms, the Court was pleased to pass an order on 27 March 2012, wherein most of the reliefs sought by American Energy in its petition and accompanying applications were denied by the Court, and which is evident from the following order:
“In view of the above and express provisions relating to arbitration and methodology laid down therein, the petitioner American Energy shall feel obliged to present the dispute to the respondents in writing within seven working days, whereafter, the same be presented to an arbitrator nominated by the parties. In case the parties are not in agreement on the nomination of arbitrator, then an arbitrator elected by the British Arbitration Association shall be the arbitrator of the parties for conducting arbitration proceedings at London, England.”
Through this order the Court disposed of the main petition. In the miscellaneous application, the Court ordered as under:
“Controversies in civil matters are disputes arising out of the agreement and as such the same are to be considered by the arbitrator. However to address the apprehension of the petitioner American Energy, for the time being, it is directed that the present status and position of the parties shall remain intact unless expressly settled or varied by the arbitrator or a forum competent to do so.”
The substantive relief which American Energy sought in its pleadings was firstly to seek appointment of receiver which was not accepted by the Court as is evident from the order. The statement in American Energy’s press release that the Court has deferred the issue of appointment of receiver is a patent misstatement and clearly a misinterpretation of the Court’s order and reflects American Energy’s malafide intentions.
Hycarbex Asia and Hycarbex Inc seek clarification of the misleading information contained in the American Energy’s press release along with unconditional apology within a week’s time, failing which they reserve the right to initiate appropriate legal proceedings against all concerned who have been party to misreporting and misrepresenting the orders passed by the Court.