Dana Gas - Mashreq Bank Rides to the Rescue Sukuk to be Repaid

 

An Essay on Criticism Seems a Valid Citation

Dana Gas announced on 15 October that it had secured a USD 90 million loan from the UAE's Mashreq Bank priced at Libor plus 3 percent. 

The loan matures in one year, but is extendable at DG's option for another four years.

As per the press release, the loan "will be repaid" when DG's Egyptian assets are sold.

Some thoughts.

First, the 3% margin is described as "initial".  That certainly sounds like it is subject to change.  AA for one would expect that as the loan is extended the margin is increased. 

Second, DG's Chairman asserted that this loan is a testament to DG's "financial and operational strength".  

That is a bit of a howler.

It reminds me of the repeated assertions of Damas' "proven business model" made some years back by the Abdullah Brothers.

DG is borrowing one year money at a 3% margin.

That is a rather large spread.

And more likely evidence of financial and operational weakness than strength.

In any case the long ordeal of the Sukuk holders is over.

Perhaps one man's gain will be another man's loss?

 

Mashreqbank v AlGosaibi - Al Sanea's Forum Non Conveniens Motion Successful

Above Main Entrance to NY Supreme Court

Looks like Mr. Al Sanea is continuing his run of victories in the NY Courts.  

As you'll recall when Mashreqbank filed suit against AHAB in the NY Supreme Court, AHAB had Mr. Al Sanea added as a third party defendant.

July 29 Judge Lowe of the NY Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Al Sanea's request that due to forum non conveniens he and Awal Bank be removed as third party defendants. 

While Mashreqbank is appealing, based on the pattern of judgments in the NY Supreme Court, their chances of obtaining a reversal of the ruling would appear to be somewhere between slim and none.   Wonder if AHAB will now find NY an inconvenient forum and file a motion.  There seems to be lots of precedents for this.

(As before, the email notification from the NY Supreme Court is a bit late in arriving.)

You can find earlier posts on this topic by using the label "Mashreqbank".

The NY Supreme Court Case Reference # is 601650/2009.

Mashreqbank v AlGosaibi - Mashreqbank's Consolidation Motion Accepted

The NY Supreme Court accepted Mashreq's motion to consolidate its two cases against AlGosaibi (the partnership) and the individual AlGosaibi heirs.  Decision was made on 10 May and posted on the NY Supreme Court's website today as Document #128.  If you'll look at earlier posts, there are details on how to access the NYSC's website.

As you'll recall, having the two cases separate had posed a legal problem for Mashreq as outlined in this earlier post.  The cases in question are 601650/2009 (against the partnership) and 602717/2009 (against the individual heirs/partners).

Dubai Court Appoints Expert in Mashreqbank Case Against Saad

According to Asa Fitch at The National, the Dubai Court hearing Masrheqbank's AED542 million (US$147.6 million) case has appointed an expert to study certain technical details.

Mashreqbank claims the expert's brief is to confirm outstanding amounts.

It's unclear how close the Court is to reaching a verdict.

Mashreqbank v The International Banking Corporation

This post reviews documents submitted in the case brought by Mashreqbank against TIBC in the Supreme Court of New York State (Case Index #601616/2009). This case has been stayed following TIBC's filing of a petition under Chapter 15 (Ancillary and Other Cross-Border Cases) of Title 11 (Bankruptcy) of the USC. Chapter 15 provides for USA recognition of insolvency or reorganization legal proceedings in other countries.  When that recognition is given then all legal proceedings in the USA are stopped pending the outcome of the foreign case.

As a foreword, there's no substitute for reading the original documents. So I recommend that you go to the NY Supreme Court website. Use the above Case Index Number to search for the case records. Note there are two cases with this Case Index Number. One in Nassau County and one in New York County. The latter is the TIBC case. Click on this one. On the next page look for the button for e-filed documents. It appears in the lower right hand. This earlier post has some instructions on how to navigate the NYSC website.

Here's a summary:

1. On 5 May Mashreq and TIBC entered into a split value FX deal. On 5 May Mashreq was to pay US$75 million to TIBC's account at HSBC NY. On 11 May TIBC would pay Mashreq SAR282.150 million to Mashreq's account with the National Commercial Bank Saudi Arabia. 
2. You will notice this is the exact same FX rate (3.762) that Mashreq applied in its transaction with AHAB. 
3. Mashreq made its payment. TIBC did not. 
4. On 11 May (from the documents in Exhibit B (Document 4-2), TIBC tried to transfer its remaining balance at Mashreq NY US$6.15 million to its account at Bank of America New York City. Mashreq canceled the transfer and offset that amount against the US$75 million. 
5. Thus, its claim is now US$68.85 million.
   

Looking at the other exhibits, specifically F and G (Documents 4-6 and 4-7), account information supplied respectively by HSBC New York and BofA New York on TIBC's accounts with them, we see that:

1. The US$75million received from Mashreq on 5 May 2009 was transferred to TIBC's account at BofA on 6 May. 
2. After various debits and credits during the month, at the end of the month TIBC had some US$57 million in its automatic investment account at BofA. An auto investment account is an account linked to the main clearing account. Each day after all transactions have been processed, the bank automatically debits the clearing account (above some agreed minimum balance to be retained and in agreed multiples) and transfers the funds to an interest bearing overnight deposit account. Each morning the funds are returned to the clearing account so that the bank can use them for its payments. 
3. At the end of May, TIBC had an approximate US$2.35 million credit balance at HSBC New York. This resulted from a credit of US$8.97 million on 20 May which partially covered a persistent overdraft of US$6.62 million in the account. Mashreq tried to seize the entire amount of the credit but HSBC had offset it against the OD. The parties agreed to recognize the Court ordered freeze on the US$2.35 million credit balance in Mashreq's favor and deal with the US$6.62 million later.  That is, whether HSBC had a right of offset against the OD on its books.
4. What precisely happened with these funds after the NY Supreme Court recognized the Bahrain legal proceedings under Chapter 15 is not clear to me.  Are the funds still in New York? Are they frozen in favor of Mashreq? Or frozen in favor of all creditors of TIBC?
   

Exhibit A (Document 4-1) provides a list of FX transactions undertaken between Mashreq and TIBC from January 2009 through 5 May 2009. 

1. There are 21. 
2. Only one was not a split value transaction. 
3. The countervalue (Saudi Riyal) amounts are not shown in this list so it's not possible to determine what the interest rates were on the loans that Mashreq was granting TIBC through this mechanism.

 
 

Mashreqbank v AlGosaibi - Motion by Mashreqbank to Consolidate Its Two Legal Cases

Mashreqbank's original legal strategy was to pursue two cases:  one against the partnership and a separate case against the heirs.

 

You'll recall earlier that earlier this month Judge Lowe ruled against Mashreqbank in its case against the heirs of Ahmad Hamad Al Gosaibi.  And if you don't remember this, here's the link to an earlier post.

Judge Lowe had stated that since Mashreqbank (a) had not joined the general partners to the suit against the partnership and (b) had not alleged  alleged that the partnership was insolvent or otherwise unable to pay its debts, it had no legal basis for pursuing a judicial order against AHAB's general partners.  

His ruling was "without prejudice" meaning that Mashreq's lawyers had the opportunity to attempt to remedy the legal shortcoming.

On 24 March Mashreq's lawyers, Cleary Gottlieb, filed a motion for consolidation of NYSC Case 601650/2009 (against AHAB) and 602171/2009 (against the general partners of AHAB).   If accepted this will apparently neatly resolve the legal issues cited in Judge Lowe's ruling.  The documents are filed at the NYSC website.  For Case 601650, it is Document  117.  For Case 601171, it's Document 47.

You'll find instructions on how to access the Supreme Court of New York's website in the earlier post linked above.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea - Other Information

(This is the fourth of a series of posts which look at more detail at recent filings in New York Supreme Court Case #601650/2009 - Mashreqbank v AlGosaibi with Mr. AlSanea as a Third Party Defendant.  More detail here on this series).

Here's a list of some other items that might be of interest.

1. Exhibit 32 (NY Supreme Court Document #108):  A dual language copy of the "Law of Procedure Before Shari'ah Courts" which deals with procedures in Saudi Arabia.
2. Exhibit 33 (NYSC Doc #108-1):  AHAB's Counsel's Argument about Mashreqbank's alleged culpability in what is alleged to be Mr. AlSanea's fraud.  On page 9, it's stated that the Money Exchange's volume of remittances during the period January 2008 through April 2009 was approximately US$66.67 million while the volume of FX transactions between Mashreqbank and the ME was approximately US$4.97 billion.
3. Exhibit 34 (NYSC Doc #108-2: Review by Jamal Al-Muzein (Mr. AlSanea's Saudi lawyer) of the legal system in Saudi Arabia.  As noted in an earlier post, one of Mr. AlSanea's arguments for forum non conveniens in New York is the robust nature of the Saudi legal system. So factor that in as you read this paper.  Also be aware that the King currently has a project ongoing to "modernize" the Saudi Court system - which may give you an idea of his view on its state.

As you read these documents - and all others related to this case - bear in mind that at present there has been no judicial determination made or verdict issued.  Mr. AlSanea is vigorously denying any allegations of wrongdoing on his part. 

AlGosaib v Maan AlSanea: Special Saudi Committee& Legal Procedures in the Kingdom

(This is the third of a series of posts which look at more detail at recent filings in New York Supreme Court Case #601650/2009 - Mashreqbank v AlGosaibi with Mr. AlSanea as a Third Party Defendant.  More detail here on this series).

This is another of Appendices to the Supplemental Affirmation of Robert F. Serio, Esq., of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (NY Supreme Court Document 107) , who represent Mr. AlSanea in these proceedings.  He is arguing in his submission in support of the contention that New York is a forum non conveniens.

The Appendix is Serio Exhibit #29 (NY Supreme Court Document 107-6).  It is expert witness testimony by Ian David Edge, Esq., who is the founding and present Director of the Centre of Islamic and Middle East Law in the Law Department at SOAS at the University of London.  He was hired as an expert witness by counsel for Mr. AlSanea. He also provided a similar brief regarding Saudi and Kuwaiti law in support of Mr. AlSanea's similar forum non conveniens argument in Ahli Kuwait's suit against Mr. AlSanea in the Supreme Court of New York.

Before we proceed any further, the usual caveat about looking at the sources of information and realizing that they are not completely disinterested parties.  They are working to promote the interests of their clients.  So as usual have your saltshaker in hand as you read.  Bear in mind that the goal of Mr. AlSanea and his attorneys would be to convince the London Court that the Saudi Committee and other legal procedures were robust and capable of dealing with this case in a professional manner resulting in the administration of true justice.  From what I've seen AHAB and its counsel are arguing that the Committee has limited powers and is not adjudicative (i.e., does not have the power to issue a legally binding judicial verdict).

It is probably a fair statement that counsel for Mr. AlSanea are presenting this testimony because it advances their contention that the trial should be held in Saudi Arabia.  One would be hard pressed to imagine them calling a witness to support AHAB's interests.  And the same can be said for AHAB.  They are likely to call witnesses who support their arguments.  Ever wonder how attorneys find witnesses who just happen to hold views congenial to their clients from among all the witnesses out there?  "An unexplained mystery of the law" as one of my buddies who took the "legal holy orders" and labored for an appeals court once told me.

I've read through Mr. Edge's comments and extracted some points about the Committee and what it has done to date: 

1. In late May 2009 in response to a personal complaint from Yousef AlGosaibi (Chairman of AHAB) the King of Saudi Arabia issued a "High Order" ("amr saami") establishing the Committee.  Its goal is to study and the matter and recommend to the King how this dispute should be resolved.
2. The Committee is composed of 12 members appointed by the King, including three judges from the Ministry of Justice, representatives from SAMA, the Saudi Capital Markets Authority, the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of Commerce.  The Committee is chaired by the equivalent of the Saudi Attorney General.
3. On 28 May 2009, the King issued another "amr saami" freezing various of Mr. AlSanea's assets and those of his wife and his children as well as of Saad Trading Contracting and Financial Services Company.  
4. Around 8 June 2009, a High Order was issued to freeze all assets held in the name of AHAB and its partners in Saudi Arabia.
5. On 1 September 2009, upon further hearings from the Committee and requests from some of AHAB's Saudi Arabian creditors to SAMA, the King imposed further restrictions on AHAB by extending the SAMA freezing order to include assets held in the names of spouses and children of prominent AHAB partners.  
6. On 4 October 2009 AHAB's lawyer sent a petition to the Committee asking them to order that Mr. AlSanea return some 58.4 million shares of SAMBA Finance Group and previous dividends amounting to SAR 975 million. The Committee rejected this request.  AHAB is reportedly appealing in one of the Kingdom's courts.

While I'm not an expert witness in Saudi law, my opinion (which I like to think is reasonably informed) is that there will be strong inclination on the Committee to look for a way to achieve a compromise between the two parties.  This is the general approach in this part of the world as opposed to the West where I think we can safely characterize the judicial system as more adversarial.  It's not uncommon in the region for an individual to be found guilty of murder and then released when the relatives of the victim forgive him.  There's a lot more "gray" in this judicial system than in the more "black and white" world in the West.

And I'll close with my usual caveat which is that as far as I know as of today no Court has ruled in this case or issued any judicial finding.  Mr. AlSanea is vigorously denying any wrongdoing on his part. 

AlGosaibi v. Maan AlSanea: UK Proceedings Witness Statement of Andrew John Ford - Allegations Against Mr. AlSanea

(This is the second in a series of posts which reviews documents filed on the Supreme Court of New York's website in connection with Mashreqbank v AHAB to which AHAB has added Mr. AlSanea as a Third Party Defendant. NY Supreme Court Case Index # 601650/2009.  More details here).

The document in question is one of the Appendices to the Supplemental Affirmation of Robert F. Serio, Esq., of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher (NY Supreme Court Document 107) , who represent Mr. AlSanea in these proceedings.  He is arguing in his submission in support of the contention that New York is a forum non conveniens.

The Appendix is Serio Exhibit #25 (NY Supreme Court Document 107-2).  What's interesting is that this document is a Witness Statement given in London by AHAB's lawyers.  Mr. Serio has introduced it because he believes it shows that in this document  AHAB (a) "acknowledges the burden of transporting those witnesses from the Middle East to testify", (b) it intends to present in evidence in England "expert evidence on 'Saudi law ... in relation to issues of authority'" and that (c) AHAB further admits "some of the factual evidence will require an interpreter". 

What's interesting are some of the other bits in Mr. Ford's statement.  Before we delve into these, it's very important to note that Mr. Ford represents AHAB and just as Mr. Serio has the interests of his client foremost in his mind so does Mr. Ford.   So as you read both documents, make no mistake that we are dealing with impartial disinterested parties in either case.   Also with respect to Mr. Ford's Witness Statement, he makes several assertions, observations and interpretations.  We need to be very clear of the distinction between an assertion - even one made in the most rigorous good faith - and a proven fact. 

Let's go to his Witness Statement.  The following are direct quotes from that statement:

1. "Paragraph 13. AHAB says that this borrowing was obtained by the forgery of the signatures of the chairman of AHAB by or at the direction of Mr AI Sanea on hundreds of banking document number: LN65977/1-EU-5542569/2 3 documents. It has submitted many of the banking documents to  forensic examination by Dr Audrey Giles, head of the Giles Document Laboratory and formerly  head of the Questioned Documents Section of the Metropolitan Police Forensic Science Laboratory. Dr Giles' work has been hampered by the lack of original documents (many of which were removed from the Money Exchange by Mr AI Sanea and which he has refused to return). Nevertheless she has so far concluded that there is evidence that the signatures on at least 286 banking documents are not  genuine. On some documents, signatures have been applied by colour photocopying or by an inkjet printer and then traced over with a porous-tip pen; on others, the signatures are identical matches of  those on other documents and therefore highly unlikely to be genuine. In some cases the signatures  were applied to documents at a time when it would have been physically impossible for the  purported author to have signed because of incapacitating illness."
2. "Paragraph 14. The scale of the alleged fraud is enormous. A large team of forensic accountants from Deloitte has been investigating the fraud on behalf of AHAB since the end of May 2009. Their work is continuing, but their analysis to-date shows that over US$5.2 billion has been paid out from the Money Exchange to Mr AI Sanea or to companies controlled by him. The outstanding total of  unauthorised borrowing arranged by Mr AI Sanea, including accrued interest, commitment fees and related charges, appears to exceed US$9.2 billion, sourced from some 118 banks around the world."

And just to end where we began.   The above are allegations by the counsel for AHAB against Mr. AlSanea.  As you might expect, both Mr. AlSanea and his counsel vigorously deny any wrongoing.  As far as I know, no Court has rendered a judgment in this matter yet.  And so these remain allegations.

AlGosaibi v Maan AlSanea: What Does Arrest Mean?

(This is the first post reviewing documents submitted in Case 601650/2009.  More details here).

There's been a lot of speculation on this issue - some of it informed and some not so well informed, including right here on this blog.

Some new information has emerged on this topic in the form of a legally sworn statement by one of the parties.

As you perhaps know, Ahmad Hamad al Gosaibi and Brothers (AHAB) added Maan AlSanea as a Third Party Defendant to the case brought against them in the Supreme Court of New York (Case Index #601650/2009).

Mr. AlSanea has been arguing that New York is a forum non conveniens. Therefore, the case should be dropped or that he should be severed from the case.

On 9 March 2010, Document #106 was published on the Supreme Court's website under Case 601650/2009.  

It is an affidavit from Mr. AlSanea containing arguments why NY is inconvenient.  These include the usual arguments you'd expect:  (a) many documents relating to the case are in Arabic, (b) the sudden discovery of profound lack of English skills among witnesses (including several who previously  were able to routinely negotiate and conduct complex multi-million dollar transactions in English and who were involved in the running of global multi-billion dollar businesses in English), (c) none of the witnesses live in the USA, (d) the robust legal procedures in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,  and so on. You should, of course, read Mr. AlSanea's affidavit to understand his argument in full so that you can judge its merits for yourself.

What's pertinent to this post is a new defense:  many of the key witnesses are under travel bans. And  taking this document on its face enables us to make some definitive statements about the legal status of some of the parties involved.

First, we learn that these parties are not currently incarcerated.  Nor would it appear that they have placed under house arrest - where they are confined to their residences.   

Rather they are forbidden to leave the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia or the Kingdom of Bahrain.  Usually, this procedure involves the surrender of one's passport and a "notation"  in the records of  the "Customs and Immigration Officers" at border crossings, including airports.

In his affidavit, Mr. AlSanea lists the following individuals subject to travel bans:

1. Himself - by Saudi Arabia
2. Yousef, Saud, Dawood, AbdulMuhsin, Waleed Kamal Ahmad Hamad Al Gosaibi - who Mr. AlSanea understands are subject to similar travel bans imposed by Saudi Arabia.  Note that caveat.
3. Mr. Alistair McLeod, Former Acting CEO of Awal Bank, resident of Bahrain and subject to a travel ban imposed by Bahrain.
4. Mr. Anthony James, Former COO of Awal Bank, resident of Bahrain and subject to a travel ban, imposed by Bahrain.
5. Mr. Cliff Giddings, Former Head of Operations of Awal Bank, resident of Bahrain and subjectd to a travel ban imposed by Bahrain.
6. Mr. Mateen AK Mirza, Former Head of Treasury at Awal Bank, resident of Bahrain and subject to a travel ban imposed by Bahrain.
7. Mr. Yasser Al Sharif, Former Risk Manager of Awal Bank, resident of Saudi Arabia but subject to a travel ban by Bahrain.  (Confess I'm not clear how this would work legally.  If he's not resident in Bahrain, he would seem to be outside Bahrain's legal control).

It's very important to note two things:

1. The imposition of a "travel ban" on an individual is not a finding of guilt.  Nor is it necessarily an indication of the suspicion of guilt.  Often witnesses who can give testimony material to an investigation are banned from traveling so that they will be available to the court.  Of course travel bans are also imposed on individuals who may be  later charged with some wrongdoing.   Though being charged and being guilty can be two different things.  As per Mr. AlSanea's affidavit, you will note that both sides in the dispute - the AlGosaibis and Mr. AlSanea himself - are subject to a travel ban.
2. The Court will make the final legal judgment of quilt in this matter.  As far as I know, no Court has yet rendered such a verdict.

New York Supreme Court: Mashreqbank v AlGosaibi - 9 March 2010 Documents

Last week a new batch of  documents relating to the legal case between Mashreqbank and Ahmad Hamad AllGosaibi and Brothers ("AHAB")  (NY Supreme Court Case Index # 601650/2009) and  the legal case between Mashreqbank and the Partners of AHAB (NYSC Case Index # 602171/2009) was published on the Supreme Court of New York's website.  You can go to that link to read these documents in their entirety - which I highly recommend.  There's no substitute for the original source documents. 

In addition to the usual partisan pleadings common to such cases, these documents contain some interesting information.  And you might find some of the assertions in the documents submitted by both sides a source of hilarity.  I still get a chuckle about the guy who ran a multi-billion dollar empire in English but suddenly can barely understand the language.

We'll largely ignore the former and concentrate on the latter in a series of posts to follow. 

Mashreqbank v AlGosaibi Heirs: Ruling Against Mashreq

Last week the Supreme Court of New York updated its website for filings in two cases brought by Mashreqbank against the AlGosaibis.  AlGosaibi heirs refer to the 20 individuals who are the partners in Ahmad Hamad AlGosaibi and Brothers.

To put what follows in context, Mashreqbank has filed three cases in the Supreme Court of New York.

1. A case against The International Banking Corporation which has been effectively stayed by a filing under Chapter 15 of Title 11.  This effectively "ended" Mashreq's case in NY.
2. A case against Ahmad Hamad al Gosaibi and Brothers (the partnership as an entity).  In its response AHAB added Maan AlSanea as a Third Party Defendant.  This is NY Supreme Court Case Index #601650/2009.
3. A case against the twenty individuals comprising the AHAB partnership.   This is NY Supreme Court Case Index #602171/2009.

I printed out a massive stack of documents from the latter two cases and have been merrily reading away the AHAB case documents.  I noticed that the stack of documents from Case #3 above was much smaller.  So I've turned my attention temporarily to that case.

Two developments.

First, as noted above, Justice Richard Lowe III has ruled against Mashreqbank's motion for the Court to order an attachment of defendants' assets, personal property, funds and electronic funds transfers that are located in New York.   He has done so "without prejudice" meaning that Mashreqbank can attempt to remedy the defects in its pleading and file again to obtain the order.  The ruling is dated 25 February 2010 but was only filed on the Supreme Court website on 8 March.  If you want to look yourself, this is document #46.  Instructions on how to access the Supreme Court Website are here.  Be sure to use the right Case Index Number 602171/2009 when you search.

What was the problem?  

The lawsuit concerns two FX deals that Masreqbank undertook.  One with AHAB (the US$150 million which is the subject of Case #2 above) and one with TIBC (which is the subject of Case #1 above).  The transactions themselves were not directly with the partners in AHAB.  

Mashreqbank's lawyers failed to "join" the two contracting parties (AHAB and TIBC) to this lawsuit.  

And in the words of Justice Lowe:  

"To state a contractual cause of action against the individual partners where the partnership is not joined, the complaint must allege that the partnership is insolvent or otherwise unable to meet its obligations."

Mashreqbank has not done this in this case.

Perhaps equally or more important (since Justice Lowe is also on the "bench" for Case #2 above), Mashreqbank has not joined the partners as defendants in Case #2 above. This seems a potentially "fatal" flaw.

Speaking about precedent case Vets North, Inc v Libutti 9278 AD2d 406, 407 [2d Dept 2000]) in which Vets North had not joined the partners and then tried to enforce a judgment against the partners:

The Court determined that plaintiff could not enforce the judgment, because the partners had not been named in the proceeding against the partnership.  "Resort to the personal assets of individual partners is possible only as to those general partners who were named individually as defendants and personally served with process in the proceeding which resulted in the judgment." (id; see also Tally v 885 Real Estate Associates, 11 AD3d 242, 242 [1st Dept 2004])

It looks like Mashreqbank's counsel has some filing to do in both cases.  Since their motion was denied without prejudice they get a second bite at the apple.  (Sorry, I couldn't resist the pun).

The second was that earlier Mashreqbank (14 January 2010) had agreed to drop Mr. AlSanea's wife (Sana Abdulaziz Hamad alGosaibi) as a defendant.  The stipulation (Document #45) is  rather short and gives no reason for this move.  It would seem to me that Mashreqbank would be looking to line up as many pockets  as it could to ensure that it retrieves all the money owed it.   And that amount is not inconsiderable.  Beyond the cases in New York, Mashreqbank has filed a case in the UAE for a total amount of AED1,457,164,610.14 (US$397,047,577.70).

Given all that is at stake, letting Ms. Sana off the hook is a rather curious move indeed.

NY Judge Questions Whether Mashreqbank v Al Gosaibi Belongs in NY Courts

Bloomberg reports that New York State Supreme Court Justice Richard Lowe postponed a hearing and other proceedings in Mashreqbank v Ahmad Hamad Al Gosaibi and Brothers asking counsel to provide him arguments why the court case (and AHAB's countersuit against Mashreqbank over which he is also presiding) should be heard in New York.

“I find it incredible that everyone here represents someone over there,” Lowe told lawyers. “All of the parties, all of the witnesses, all of the documents here have to be translated from Arabic and I have to then apply New York state law,” he said.

A decision that Saudi Arabia is the proper forum could have an impact on the case raised by AHAB against Maan AlSanea in New York as well.