Breaking: Explosion Reported at Boston Marathon's Finish Line

[Magda Hassan]

Some sort of legal argy bargy going on between thieves it looks like. My bolding. Big Sky is no longer operating though I am sure it has risen phoenix like elsewhere and the $s safely tucked away some where. Looks like he got his sister/their aunty to come in and help.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

1. On 18 November 2005 a subsidiary of Big Sky, BSEA and VEW filed a Statement of Claim in the Republic of Kazakhstan against Ligostrade Service LLP ("Ligostrade") and Farkhad Koblandyuly Shakirov, a former employee of Big Sky's subsidiary, VEW, seeking to invalidate a purported Assignment Agreement dated 28 September 2005, related to an attempt to assign the subsoil use rights arising under Subsoil Use Contract No. 1076, in respect of the Atyrau Block ("Assignment Agreement") to Ligostrade.

On 22 November 2005 an Injunction was granted to VEW and BSEA, prohibiting Ligostrade, Mr. Shakirov and the MEMR from doing any actions to implement the purported Assignment Agreement including, the re-registration of the subsoil use rights arising under Subsoil Use Contract No 1077 in respect of the Atyrau Block pending the hearing of the case and any appeals.


On December 2, 2005 the scope of the Injunction was extended to prohibit the following acts: (a) the alienation or pledging of any shares or interests in or assets of Ligostrade Service LLP or any of its affiliated or related companies, whether by such parties themselves or by their bankers, financiers, employees, officers, directors, agents, lawyers, consultants and contractors ("Affiliates"), including without limitation all and any rights, interests or claims such party may have in relation to the subsoil use rights to the Atyrau Block arising under Contract No. 1077; (b) the sale, transfer or assignment of any rights or assets by Ligostrade Service LLP, or any of its or of any of its affiliated or related companies, and whether by such


11



parties themselves or by their Affiliates, including, without limitation, all and any rights, interests or claims such party may have in relation to the subsoil use rights to the Atyrau Block howsoever arising under Contract No. 1077; and © the MEMR from registration or transfer of any rights they may have in regards to the subsoil use rights to the Atyrau Block arising under Contract No. 1077.


As a result of certain interlocutory matters in relation to the various Kazakhstani Court proceedings, on 6 February 2006 Big Sky, acting through VEW and BSEA, commenced proceedings in the Almaty Inter-District Specialised Economic Court against Ligostrade Service LLP and its errant former employee, Mr. F. K. Shakirov, seeking to invalidate the purported Assignment Agreement (as amended) and a new Injunction in support of such proceedings along the lines of the Injunction previously obtained on 22 November 2005 and as amended on 2 December 2005. The substantive hearings in this case have yet to be held.


On or about 18 October 2005, Ligostrade Service LLP commenced proceedings in the Almaty Specialised Inter-District Economic Court against VEW seeking to compel VEW to perform its obligations under the purported Assignment Agreement of 28 September 2005, and to transfer all geological and other data.
On 15 February 2006 the Almaty Specialised Inter-District Economic Court issued an Injunction against Geostan LLP, one of VEW's seismic data processing sub-contractors, arresting the data and documents in its possession.
This Injunction/arrest was appealed by VEW on 24 February 2006, by Private Complaint to the Almaty City Court, which appeal will be heard on 23 March 2006.


In addition, on 13 March 2006, the Astana Specialised Inter-District Economic Court, in connection with proceedings commenced on 31 January 2006 by VEW and BSEA against the MEMR, issued a Ruling invalidating the purported Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. 1077, the purported registration of this purported Amendment No. 1 and the Decision of the Expert Commission of MEMR purporting to approve the purported transfer of the subsoil use rights to the Atyrau Block to Ligostrade. This Judgement will take effect after 15 days after the date of its issue unless appealed.
VEW is vigorously defending the substance of this claim by Ligostrade and the substantive proceedings of this case was adjourned by Ruling dated 16 February 2006 pending resolution of the claims by BSEA and VEW against Ligostrade referred to above.


2. Hydrocarbon Contract #1104 in respect of the Karatal Block,
Hydrocarbon Contract #1102 in respect of the Dauletaly Block, and
Hydrocarbon Contract #1076 in respect of the Liman-2 Block


On March 23, 2005 KoZhaN received a letter purported to be from the MEMR acting as a Competent Body under the Hydrocarbon Contracts. In this letter the MEMR allegedly notified KoZhaN of a suspension for six (6) months of its subsoil use rights under the Hydrocarbon Contract #1104 for the Karatal Block due to alleged violations of the terms of this Contract, primarily relating to the implementation and fulfillment of the Minimal Work Program. On the same date KoZhaN received a letter purportedly from the MEMR notifying KoZhaN of a suspension for six (6) months of its subsoil use rights under the Hydrocarbon Contract # 1102 for the Dauletaly Block due to alleged violations of the terms of this Contract.


On March 23, 2005 VEW received a letter purportedly from the MEMR acting as a Competent Body under the Hydrocarbon Contracts. In this letter the MEMR allegedly notified VEW of a suspension for six (6) months of its subsoil use rights under the Hydrocarbon Contract # 1076 for the Liman-2 Block due to alleged violations of the terms of this Contract primarily relating to the implementation and fulfillment of the Minimal Work Program.


After receipt of these letters KoZhaN and VEW wrote various letters to the MEMR enclosing various documents and information required by the letters dated 23 March 2005.


On October 7, 2005 KoZhaN received a letter purportedly from the MEMR notifying KoZhaN on unilateral cancellation of the Hydrocarbon Contract # 1104 for the Karatal Block. On the same date KoZhaN received a letter from the MEMR notifying KoZhaN of unilateral cancellation of the Hydrocarbon Contract # 1102 for the Dauletaly Block.


On October 7, 2005 VEW received a letter purportedly from the MEMR notifying VEW of unilateral cancellation of the Hydrocarbon Contract # 1076 for the Liman-2 Block.


12



On October 12 and 17, 2005 KoZhaN wrote letters to the MEMR seeking to confirm the authenticity of the letters dated October 7, 2005, and requesting that the MEMR withdraw and cancel these letters.


On October 31, 2005, after the meeting with representatives of KoZhaN, the MEMR then wrote a letter to KoZhaN requesting that it provide a detailed report on the works actually performed by it in relation to the Karatal and Dauletaly Blocks for the period ending September 30., 2005 pursuant to the Hydrocarbon Contracts #1104 and 1102, respectively.


On October 12 and 17, 2005 VEW wrote letters to the MEMR seeking to confirm the authenticity of the letter dated October 7, 2005, and requesting that the MEMR withdraw and cancel this letter.


On October 31, 2005, after the meeting with representatives of KoZhaN, the MEMR then wrote a letter to VEW requesting that it provide a detailed report on the works actually performed by it in relation to the Liman-2 Block for the period ending September 30, 2005 pursuant to the Hydrocarbon Contract # 1076.


On November 3, 2005 KoZhaN wrote a letter to the MEMR in response to its letter dated October 31, 2005. On November 3, 2005 VEW wrote a letter to the MEMR in response to its letter dated October 31, 2005.


On November 9, 2005 the MEMR wrote one single letter both to KoZhaN and VE W, in response to their letters dated November 3, 2005. In this letter the MEMR advised both companies on the reasons of its decision as the Competent Body in respect of the cancelled Hydrocarbon Contracts, primarily referring to non-fulfillment of the Minimal Work Program of the Exploration Period as main violation of their obligations under the Hydrocarbon Contracts.


In relation to Contract No. 1104 as to the Karatal Block, Contract No.1102 as to the Dauletaly Block and Contract No. 1076 as to the Liman-2 Block (the "Blocks") a Commission has been established by the MEMR to review its decision of 7 October 2005 to cancel Big Sky's subsidiaries' (the "Group") subsoil use rights to the Blocks. Big Sky has received legal advice to the effect that, until this Commission has made and delivered its report, and the MEMR have acted pursuant thereto, only then will any alleged modification of the subsoil use rights associated with the Blocks be determined.


On 17 January 2006 the MEMR confirmed the title of KoZHan to the subsoil use rights arising in relation to the Karatal and Dauletaly Blocks pursuant to Subsoil Use Contracts Nos. 1102 and 1104. To date the Group has not received or been provided with any other evidence which would suggest KoZHan is no longer the registered subsoil users in respect of the Liman-2 Block pursuant to Contract 1076 as issued on 7 October 2005 in the Courts and the limitation period only expires on 6 October 2008.

The effect of the Commission's determination regarding the Liman-2 Block cannot, at this time, be estimated. At this time, due to the lack of relevant facts, any estimate of the effect of the Commission's determination would, therefore, be mere speculation.


VEW has the possibility to appeal the decision of MEMR to purport to cancel the subsoil use rights arising in relation to the Liman-2 Block pursuant to Contract 1076 as issued on 7 October 2005 in the Courts, and the limitation period only expires on 6 October 2008.
Big Sky, BSEA and VEW have been working to prepare such a claim, which is expected to be filed shortly in order to reinstate VEW's subsoil use rights in relation to the Liman-2 Block.

3. On 8 March 2006 the District Court of Clark County, in the State of Nevada, USA, granted in favour of Big Sky a Temporary Restraining Order against Ruslan Tsarni, Maret Tsarnaeva and Farkhad Shakirov preventing them, or any third party, from seeking to or actually relying upon a purported Extract/Certificate/Affidavit of 22 March 2005 upon which Mr. Shakirov purported to base his authority to contract with Ligostrade on behalf of VEW in relation to the Atyrau Block as referred to above. Mr. Tsarni is Big Sky's former Vice President Business Development. Ms. Tsarnaeva is the sister of Ruslan Tsarni and was brought into the Big Sky Calgary offices by Mr. Tsarni with the stated intention of training her to become the in-house counsel on corporate and securities matters.
This Temporary Restraining Order is in support of substantive proceedings commenced by Big Sky to have such Extract/Certificate/Affidavit recognised as false, fraudulent, void and invalid ab initio .
This Temporary Restraining Order has already been served upon Messrs Tsarni and Shakirov and is being served upon Ms Tsarnaeva. The Clark County District Court has appointed the next hearing for 24 March 2006 and Big Sky confidently expects it will be successful in all respects.


13



4. Personal Claims involving Mr. F.K. Shakirov
(a)Mr. F.K. Shakirov, personally, commenced an action in the Almaty City Court against BSEA and VEW for reinstatement as President of VEW.
An appeal to the Supervisory Collegium of the Supreme Court is being prepared against an Ex-parte Default Judgement that was initially issued re-instating Mr. Shakirov as VEW's President on 7 November 2005. This appeal will shortly be filed by BSEA and VEW and is supported by the Temporary Restraining Order issued on 8 March 2006 by the District Court of Clark County, in the State of Nevada, USA, referred to above.
(b) Mr. Shakirov filed a claim in the Almaty City Court for compensation of his alleged moral damages in the amount of KZT134,000,000 (approximately USD $1,050,000 as of March 17, 2006) arising out of a letter written by BSEC, BSEK and BSEA to Ligostrade pointing out that Mr. Shakirov was never President of VEW and had no right, power or authority to contract on its behalf.
On 4 November 2005, Mr. F. K. Shakirov obtained an order restraining the assets of BSEC and BSEK in amount of KZT 134 000 000 as security for his moral damages claim, which will be released if and when any moral damages are paid. This restraining of assets was appealed by BSEC and BSEK to the Civil Collegium of the Supreme Court on 11 November 2005, as a result of which the restrainment was reduced to only cover assets equivalent to the amount of KZT 134,000,000.
On 27 December 2005 the Almaty City Court awarded Mr. Shakirov the amount of KZT30,000 (approximately USD $240.00 as of March 17, 2006), in moral damages. This was appealed by BSEC, BSEK and BSEA to the Supreme Court, which upheld such Ruling on 28 February 2006.


An appeal against this Ruling to the Supervisory Collegium of the Supreme Court is being prepared and will shortly be filed by BSEC, BSEK and BSEA.
© A claim was filed by Mr. F. Shakirov against VEW, Messrs Kairat Zhangaziyev, S.A. Sehsuvaroglu and Serzhan Shakirov again for moral damages in the amount of KZT134,000,000 (arising from an announcement published in Kazakhstanskaya Pravda as to the fact that Mr. Shakirov was never the President of VEW and, in any event, was removed from all positions) in the Medeu District Court on 20 October 2005. Mr. Zhangaziyev and Mr. Serzhan Shakirov are engineers employed by VEW and Mr. Sehsuvaroglu is the President of VEW and Big Sky. There is no relationship between Mr. Serzhan Shakirov and Mr. F. Shakirov. This case was suspended on 21 November 2005 and resumed on 4 January 2006. The next hearings are expected on 15 March 2006.
(d) A claim was filed by Mr. Shakirov against VEW in the Medeu District Court for recovery of his unpaid salary (arising after the date he was initially suspended on 4 October 2005) in the amount of KZT 282,918 (approximately USD $2,200 as of March 17, 2006), as well as compensation for the moral damage Mr. Shakirov claimed to have suffered because of the non-payment of his salary in the amount of KZT 300, 000. A first instance Judgement in Mr. Shakirov's favour was issued against VEW on 17 February 2006 in the amount of KZT 282,918, however Mr. Shakirov's moral damage claim was rejected. VEW prepared and filed a Private Complaint in appeal on 3 March 2006 against this Judgement, which will be considered in the Almaty City Court on 30 March 2006.
(e) A further claim by Mr. Shakirov against KoZHan for recovery of unpaid salary (arising after the date he was initially suspended on 4 October 2005) in the amount of KZT 13,824 (approximately USD $108.00 as of March 17, 2006), together with moral damages of KZT 300,000 for such non-payment of salary was filed in the Bostandyk District Court on 16 January 2006. KoZHan is vigorously defending this case and a counter-claim was filed on 13 March 2006, in the amount of KZT 29,402 (approximately USD $230.00 as of March 17, 2006), representing the amount owing by Mr. Shakirov to KoZHan for absence of an expense report for the expenditure of KZT 29,402. A hearing is scheduled for 16 March 2006.


Big Sky is working closely with its lawyers and other advisers to vigorously defend, rebut and counter-claim against the same as it firmly believes that such claims are simply intended to try and distract Big Sky and its management's attention from its successful business of exploring for and producing hydrocarbons in Kazakhstan and that the same are totally without merit and that Mr. Shakirov et al will be proven to have acted improperly and fraudulently, as criminal proceedings against Mr. Shakirov now underway have begun to show.


We are not a party to any other material legal proceeding or litigation and we know of no additional material legal proceeding or contemplated or threatened litigation. We are subject to potential litigation in the normal course of operations. There are no other claims currently pending that we consider would materially affect our operations.


14



DIRECTORS, EXECUTIVE OFFICERS, PROMOTERS AND CONTROL PERSONS


We employ our executive officers as consultants under the terms of individual consulting agreements. See "Employment and Consulting Agreements". Each member of the board of directors serves until their successor is appointed at a duly called Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Big Sky.


The following table sets forth information, as of December 9, 2005, regarding our directors, executive officers and key employees:

http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX...CJwqZCUX97