Statement on the recent actions of INE with Paul Marriott / Maranco LLC
In the communication of the 9th November, BNE / INE continued its campaign of negativity
against Maranco LLC and the actions of originating member of INE / BNE Paul Marriott.
Maranco LLC would like the opportunity to update the members of INE on recent legal
activity.
You will recall in the statement to shareholders issued in September 2009 at the meeting in
Dublin, Maranco stated that BNE was in debt to Maranco for a considerable amount of
money, we can now confirm this totals $3,011,387.50. This comprised of invoices for drilling
day rate work for two months, drill pipe inspection testing and the demobilisation of the three
rigs that BNE had mobilised between 2005 and 2008, (Demobilisation of $1,870,000.00 and
$621,637.50 for Rig 11 Standby Rate from 29 of March to 30 April, 2009 and $519,750.00 for
Rig 7 from 10 to 30 April, 2009). These as per the conditions of contract and the contractual
obligations that Maranco had adhered to and INE/BNE had refused to pay. The conditions of
the drilling contract stipulated that the operating company had to pay for the demobilisation
of a rig at the end of a contract. This is recognized industry standard throughout the
world. Demobilisation is the process whereby the rig is returned to its original base, in this
case the UK, this is an extremely expensive logistical operation.
When INE/BNE commenced drilling in Belize they were granted Duty Free Exemption (TIL
Temporary Import License) which enabled the company to bring plant and equipment into
the country free of importation duties, the only tax payable by BNE for the TIL was GST of
10% at that time. Maranco’s rigs were brought into Belize under the umbrella of BNE’s Duty
Free Exemption.
After cancelling Maranco’s contract INE/BNE sought to imply that Maranco was no longer
covered by the duty free exemption and began to lobby the Belize Customs Department to
charge Maranco the full tax amount which was likely to exceed $2 million. This was part of
INE/BNE’s strategy to drain Maranco’s funds and put it under extreme financial pressure.
Maranco had no option but to demobilise its three rigs at its own expense, approximately $1.7
million because INE/BNE refused to honour its contractual obligation to pay Maranco.
Due to INE/BNE’s refusal to settle their debt, Maranco had no choice but to commence
arbitration proceedings against BNE to recover this demobilisation amount and the
outstanding invoice amounts. Arbitration is a well recognised dispute resolution procedure
included in drilling contracts to resolve disputes over payments or work in a fair, independent
and impartial manner.
Faced with a strong arbitration challenge BNE chose to try and circumvent the legal system
by paying part of the demobilisation into an escrow account pending the outcome of
arbitration. During the arbitration process it was ruled that this was entirely inappropriate and
that Maranco were due payment. BNE finally paid Maranco in April 2010, however they only
paid $1.6 million leaving $100,000 outstanding and this was almost a year after the contract
was complete.
This still left a considerable unpaid balance that had to go through a rigorous arbitration
process. In normal circumstances arbitration takes 90 days, in our case due to unfathomable
delays our dispute took 11 months to arrive at a resolution.
The details of dates are as follows:



Claimant Appointment of Arbitrators: September 30, 2009
Defendant Appointment of Arbitrators: October 8, 2009
1st. Hearing was held on 5th February, 2010


2nd. Hearing was held on 11 May, 2010
Final award to Maranco by Arbitrators on 25th August, 2010.
At the end of this process two independent arbitrators and an Umpire agreed that Maranco
was indeed entitled to the full amount of the invoices with costs.
Since the arbitration final decision ruling in August 2010, INE/BNE have blatantly ignored
the arbitrators ruling and refused to pay the Arbitration Award.
Maranco again had no choice but to apply to the high court in Belize to seek enforcement to
collect the debt. The court hearing was set for Monday 8th November, 2010
At 3pm on Thursday 4th November 2010, in complete disregard for the arbitration process, an
application to set aside the entire arbitration process was presented to the court by Melanie
Escalante on behalf of the Company. It appeared that the Directors and CEO of the company,
and their friends, were busy attending a ball in Ireland and thus the task was delegated down
the ranks to Mrs. Escalante.
Because of the deliberate lateness of this application, the judge did not have time to consider
the salient points and had no choice but to adjourn until the following Monday, Monday 15th
November. On this date the judge heard the case and stated that a decision would be
announced on 22nd November.
The decision of the High Court of Belize was made on the 22 nd November. The Court ruled
in favour of Maranco and to allow the enforcement order for the collection of the outstanding
monies plus interest to be paid immediately. This now means that BNE have a High Court
judgment and enforcement order against them and we await their compliance with
this. INE/BNE have simply wasted the court and Maranco’s time and money, again. They
have also wasted shareholders money in pointless legal fees, again.
In total Maranco has spent in excess of $1 Million in legal fees to fight this case. Part costs
have been awarded to Maranco on the arbitration but again we have to await the payment of
this along with our monies due.
We note from the communications sent out via the INE communication channel that INE has
not reported any of this to you the members. Remarkably this has not been reported by the
media in Belize.
Nevis Case
In a separate legal case Maranco informed INE members in September that it has taken action
in Nevis against the company as set out in the statement of claim provided at this time. These
are apposite and pertinent claims that we firmly believe are in the best interests of INE.
On the 8th November, 2010 (note the same date as High Court action in Belize) INE applied
to the court in Nevis for an application for additional time to submit their defense to the claim
submitted in July by Maranco. After 12 weeks had lapsed the court ruled in favour of
Maranco that INE had indeed had time to prepare a defense and this was to be filed
immediately. Their defense was duly submitted on the 8th November as ordered by the court.
In addition to the defense an erroneous counter claim was made against me Paul Marriott and
my company for the theft of a crane that had been purchased by BNE back in 2007. From the
alleged date until this date, at no time was I ever asked about this item or any information
sought from me to clarify any expenditures relating to these items by the Company.
The next morning the 9th November four police officers (one who was armed) were waiting at
our offices and said they had a search warrant and would possibly detain me, they proceeded
to ask me to accompany them to search my work yard /offices and workshop buildings at
Iguana Creek.
These actions were based on allegations made by the in-house company lawyer for BNE Mr
David Morales to the Belmopan Police. These false and trumped up allegations are
completely unfounded and the police having completely satisfied themselves that no such
items existed on my company’s premises, left and apologised to me for the inconvenience.
This action of using the police to essentially deal with a corporate dispute mirrors that of the
action taken against my fellow Director Sheila McCaffrey in early 2009, the results of which
INE continue to broadcast on the communication channel. The same methodology was used
as in McCaffrey’s case and if I had not been in Belize on that morning the same persecution
and intimidation would have been directed at me.
BNE / INE and its Directors have sought to use their influence and to exert a strategy where
Maranco have been starved of legitimate funds having completed all its contractual
obligations. In addition, the recent actions of seeking to try and arrest me for spurious
allegations are further proof that the Directors of our company are no longer fit to deal with
our company in a proper corporate manner. My case in Nevis is clearly seeking to address all
of these issues. As shareholders if you have any questions that you wish to address to me on
this action I will of course be happy to answer these in a proper and orderly fashion.
Paul Marriott, Maranco LLC