LAS CRISTINAS: A HISTORY OF DECEPTION

A new twist to an old story

The area surrounding El Dorado has played host to prospectors and miners for decades and provided a colorful backdrop for tens of thousands of individuals searching for adventure and fortunes in gold.

The Las Cristinas area was parceled off as legal mining concessions in 1963 and the concession titles for Cristinas 4, 5, 6 and 7 where issued in 1964, for a 25 year period, to Ms. Dot Culver-Lemon, whose deceased husband was credited with assisting Jimmy Angel in the discovery of the worlds highest waterfall, Angel Falls, about 80 miles west of El Dorado.

Ms. Culver-Lemon, a resident of the United States, was quick to get help and advice on what to do with the property and entered into a series of contracts and lease agreements promising great riches to her via the exploitation of the mining concessions. As she did not reside in Venezuela and did not speak Spanish, she depended on the advice of local experts and lawyers, a dependency that would deprive her of any meaningful income from the mine and would eventually cost her the mining title due to a fraud committed by one of her former legal representatives.


1. The Sale of Las Cristinas to Torres

On September 4 1985 Culver-Lemon issues a power of attorney to Jesus Angel Adrianza Morales, a local lawyer who was engaged to represent her interests in a Las Cristinas concessions.

On April 7 1986, a disillusioned Culver–Lemon revoked this power of attorney at the same Notary where the instrument is registered. and the registry officer places a note on the margins of the original document, rendering it cancelled and without further value.

On April 16 1986, days after Culver-Lemon revokes the power of attorney from Adrianza Morales. Morales enters into an alleged transaction wherein Morales assigns the title rights of the Las Cristinas Concessions 4 and 6 to Ramon Torres. Mr. Torres is a Venezuelan national, who prior to the transaction, conveniently acquired a debt of BS 250 000, supposedly owed by Lemon-Culver to one of her former lawyers, a Mr. Schmidt, for professional services. This is how Ramon Torres got possession of documents that permitted the registration of himself as the new owner of Cristinas 4 & 6 in Guasipati.

Interestingly enough, Morales presents, when registering the transfer document of the Las Cristinas to Ramon Torres, as documentation authorizing him to act on behalf of Culver–Lemon, a copy of the power of attorney, which includes an official looking seal certifying that the copy is correct. This supposedly "certified copy" of the document was dated April 10 1986, 3 days after Culver-Lemon revoked the power of attorney and the registry officer placed the margin note rendering the authority cancelled and revoked.

The copy used in the Morales/Torres transaction did not show the margin note and left the impression that the authority was still valid. Alan Brewer Carias refers to this moment as the beginning of a monumental fraud in his book "El Caso de Las Cristinas" (1998).

May 14 1986 Torres executes a document transferring all his "rights" to Las Cristinas 4 & 6 to Inversora Mael, a company of which he is one of the principle officers. Torres presents this document to the regional registry office in Guasipati, a small village about 150 km north of El Dorado for registration and so Mael's ownership of the Las Cristinas mining rights arranged in1986.


2. Legal annulment of the Morales/Torres Mael transactions

June 20 1986, Culver-Lemon passes away and her unclaimed inheritance and estate ends up under the administration of an executor who demands that the transaction between Morales/Torres and Torres/Mael be annulled.

On February 6, 1991, the Third Court, First Instance in Caracas, rules to annul the Morales/Torres and Torres/Mael Assignment of Rights over the Las Cristina and decrees in its decision:

a. Mrs. Culver-Lemon never stopped being the true and only owner of the Concessions Cristinas 6 & 4.

b. The transfer between Adrianza Morales and Ramon Torres and between Torres and Mael was null and void.

c. That Mael never had been owner of the concessions 4 & 6.

Mael filed an appeal against the third court's decision to annul the assignment transaction which leads to an agreement between the CVG/Torres /Mael and the executor of the estate on May 9 1991 wherein Mael and Torres agree to desist from any further legal actions because of an agreed to settlement.


3. Mael attempt’s to transfer the concession titles of Cristinas 4 & 6

After having completed the registration of the assignment of title at the Guasipati legal registry office in 1986, Mael tries to force the publications of the assignments of rights by the MEM. This publication is the first step in a process of any transfer of title to a mining concession and must be completed before the MEM can proceed with the process of evaluation to see if the Title can or should be transferred to the new party.

Important to note is that the publication of notification is by no means the same as the publication of a MEM resolution of transfer of mining rights. The latter is the final step in the transfer process awarding the concession rights to the new party, the former is only an announcement that someone has applied for such a transfer and that the MEM will be engaged in ruling on this request. This first notification allows for public input in the requested transfer procedures and only the publication of the final resolution completes the process.

There was never a resolution planned or published that would confirm transfer of the Las Cristinas titles to Mael. Mael only applied for the notification of its application to transfer the titles.

On April 14, 1988, the MEM advises that it will not publish the notification of assignment from Torres to Mael since Torres never participated in the Culver–Lemon/Morales assignment to the MEM.

On Oct 26, 1988, Mael files a nullity action against the MEM decision not to publish the notification of the application to transfer and received a positive ruling.

On May 9, 1991, the court orders the MEM to publish the notification of transfer. The court uses the premises that the notification is a right of Mael and that the MEM's reasons for not concluding the assignment should be applied after the notification has been published. This court decision is based on the evidence and documents filed by the parties up to June 1990, after which time the court retreated in to the decision process and no further participation from the parties was recorded.


4. MEM Revokes Las Cristina’s Mining Tiles

On February 7, 1989, the MEM published a resolution revoking the concession titles since the 25 year term has elapsed. In the same resolution the MEM rejects a request to have the concession awarded to Mael, citing non payment of taxes and lack of standing on the part of Mael to request such an award since the estate of Culver–Lemon possessed first rights to any potential extension of rights.

The Las Cristinas concessions have now returned to state control.


5. Enter the CVG

The CVG, a state corporation chartered with the development of industry and mining in the Guyana region receives the authority to administer the mining area where the Las Cristinas are located. The CVG's efforts to form a binding with a development partner are frustrated by the Mael action and the pending appeal process over the annulment of the Morales/Torres assignment. The problem is not that Mael has a legal case, but that as long as the appeal process has not been completed and the court has not ruled on the appeal, the project cannot be moved forward. For this reason, on May 9, 1991, the same day the court decided to order the publication of the notification, the CVG enters into an agreement with Torres/Mael, the executor of the Culver-Lemon estate and the MEM, wherein the parties agree to the following:

a. Mael will desist from any legal actions and promises never to attempt any more legal actions in the future in regards to the Las Cristinas concessions 4 & 6.

b. Mael has nothing to claim from the estate of Culver–Lemon.

c. Mael recognizes that the concession titles have been revoked and that nothing further is to be gained by insisting in the publication of notification of assignment that was decreed by the court on the 9 of May 1991 and that it will abstain from insisting on the publication.

e. Later Mael also withdrew its appeal against the 1991 court decision annulling the Morales/Torres/Mael assignments from 1986. The Mael Torres Issue is finally put to rest and the CVG moves forward.


6. Enter MINCA

Following an open bidding process, the CVG awards an exploration and development contract to MINCA, a joint venture company between Placer Dome de Venezuela (70 %) and the CVG (30 %). MINCA is the operator, with 3 directors on the Board of Directors and the CVG holds 2 director seats, but the corporate bylaws bestow veto power to the CVG in any material decisions affecting the construction or financing of the mine. MINCA contracts out to Placer Dome Exploration for the investigation of the property. Financing comes via loans arranged for by Placer Dome.

7. Enter KRY

By mid 1996 it becomes apparent, from Placer Domes news releases that the Las Cristinas concessions contain in excess of 8 million ounces of gold and that up to 20 million ounces were possible. Inversora Mael again becomes involved and its principles look for someone that would purchase the company. The assets of the company are to be the opportunity to contest the CVG right to enter into a contract with MINCA.

Mael carefully selects the documentation to portray that it is the registered titleholder and that it had a court decision in its favor ordering the MEM to complete the transfer. The document registered in Guasipati in 1986 and the court decision of May 9, 1991 (ordering the MEM to publish the notification of application for an assignment) is used to confirm their ownership. After all ,the in Guasipati registered document showed that Morales assigned Lemon-Culver's rights to Torres, and Torres to Mael, and the May 9 court decision ordered the MEM to publish this assignment.

Mael strategists are very careful to withhold the February 1991 decision, which annulled the assignment transaction between Torres and Mael and decided that Mael never had title rights to the property. Neither did Mael disclose the agreement between the CVG, MEM, the Estate and themselves in which they acknowledged that the concessions were revoked in 1989 and that the publication would serve no further purpose. Torres and Mael's officers and directors also promised in 1991 that they would never again pursue any legal action regarding the Las Cristinas property.

In 1996, Mael returns to court and complains that the MEM did not comply with the March 1991 order to publish the application of the assignment notice and that the title is registered in Mael's name in Guasipati and seeks a judgment against the MEM to comply with the May 9, 1991, court order. Mael’s owner contracted an agent with international contacts to search for a buyer of Mael.

The agent makes contact with KRY and via its Venezuelan subsidiary and serious conversations starts as far back as October 1996 when KRY President Mark Oppenheimer meets and negotiates with Mael's owners. It is interesting to note is that the legal council who briefed the sales agent as to the due diligence material and legal standing of Mael also had a relationship with KRY and has also been the principle legal advisor to Mael. This council was very well informed and fully aware of the real legal background of the Las Cristinas issue and participated as an interested party in the 1991 procedures where the original transaction between Morales and Torres was annulled.

Mr. Oppenheimer apparently becomes interested in acquiring a potential legal action against the CVG and, by extension, Placer Dome, and a presentation to the Board of Directors of KRY is arranged for December 1996. Mael's Owners form two new companies offshore in Aruba, called Stay Management and Red Glove AVV. The Mael shares are transferred to Stay Management, which is owned by Red Glove.

On February 12, 1997, Directors of KRY enter Venezuela apparently under great secrecy via private charter and negotiate the final deal with Mael's owners.

On Feb 14, 1997, the President of Crystallex and a Director took the chartered aircraft to Aruba accompanied by the Mael president, Manueal Zarpata, and Red Glove representative Alexandrino Norgriera, where they have the transactions acquiring Mael's completed. The agreements, which include warrants stating that Mael owns all the rights to the Las Cristinas concessions and that no commitment or agreement exists that could infringe on those rights.

It is unreasonable that the KRY Directors would accept such declarations and direct KRY to commit to a 30 Million Dollar payment within 14 days on a agreement that did not see any specific legal opinion attached as to the Mael Las Cristinas rights, especially when KRY already experienced a 15 million dollar plus loss with a similar acquisition when only one year earlier, in 1995, Crystallex had the Santa Elena/Carabobo property rights revoked. In this transaction KRY acquired properties from a CO-OP, despite the fact that Venezuelan Law prohibited such transactions.

KRY manages to have the final transfer of the concessions published, only to end up with the title transfer to KRY being annulled due to alleged irregularities in the acquisition and assignment process. (KRY filed an appeal to this annulment but never followed up to service the case and court closed the file due to inactivity and the resolution revoking the transfer stood firm). Despite the fact that Mael had executed an agreement by which it recognize not to have rights on the Las Cristinas and compromises not to file any legal action over such properties.

KRY had acquired by 1992 the Albino Project, next to Cristinas, somehow they new about the situation on Cristinas and its title owners, as all the mining companies of the area were aware. It is not reasonable to assume that KRY had no knowledge of the legal situation surrounding the Las Cristinas title issue, especially after MINCA already invested over $150 million. Placer Dome is not as frivolous as to invest that kind of money without extensive research into the title. Then there is the fact that KRY legal council in Venezuela without doubt had intimate knowledge of the historic proceedings. In fact , Mael benefited by getting several concession contracts from the CVG in exchange for ending its efforts to frustrate the CVG’s development of Las Cristinas with legal maneuvers in 1991. The same legal council that is involved in the Mael sale to KRY also provides briefings to agents contracted by Mael’s owners in 1993. Then Mael contracts a consulting firm with international connections to sell the concession contracts received from the CVG as part of the 1991 settlement agreement between the CVG and Mael. Coincidently, it is the same consulting firm that made the initial introduction between Mael’s owners and KRY.

On March 3 1997, KRY announces that it has acquired all the rights to Las Cristinas 4 and 6 and that those rights are confirmed by a decision from the Venezuelan Supreme Court. This of course is a false and misleading statement. Mael has no rights and there is no confirmation of any rights from the Supreme Court. KRY $30 million purchase is a company with no fixed assets and a court decision ordering the MEM to comply with a court order issued in 1991 that essentially serves no purpose. In fact, the Official Gazette Mr. Oppenheimer shows KRY shareholders during the 1997 annual meeting leaves the impression that this publication confirms KRY's mining rights. Unfortunately for him, the court decision points out that it only ruled on the obligation the MEM had to accept an application for the publishing of notification of assignment as per article 15 of the mining law, which is in no way to be understood as to be confirmation of title. The decision does refer to the acquisition by Mael and that the MEM had not shown a reason why this acquisition should be considered invalid. Of course, the court did not know about the 1991 annulment of the assignment and the subsequent agreement between Mael and the CVG. KRY legal counsel however had to have been aware of this since the officers and directors of the recently acquired Inversora Mael were the same individuals that received the MEM resolution that rejected Mael's bid for the Las Cristinas 4 and 6 concession titles in 1989. These also participated in the annulment of 1986 assignment involving Morales/Torres and were signatories to the 1991 agreements, where they committed Mael to desist from all present and future legal actions.

MEM resolution 217, which dismisses claims made by Mael against the CVG right to administrate and develop Las Cristinas, is well known to Mael and to KRY when they file an appeal against it in April 1997, 2 months after the purchase of Mael.

At this point, KRY is seriously misleading in regards to the status of its Venezuelan activities and assets. This leads to a disinformation campaign, due to interpretations of events taken out of context, and material facts intentionally not disclosed. This distorts the actual situation, and this intentional distortion continues even after the Supreme Court rules on June 11, 1998, that Mael has no legal standing to bring forward a legal case regarding Las Cristinas. This decision also considers that the Third Court on Feb.6, 1991, annulled the Morales/Torres /Mael Transfer and that Mael and Torres subsequently signed an agreement between CVG and Mael in which Mael received mining rights to other properties from the CVG in exchange for never again attempting to frustrate the Las Cristinas project. Had those facts been disclosed, analysts would have been better able to assess the Las Cristinas title situation.

It should have ended there, but it did not. On December 7, 1999 KRY/Mael filed a new legal action against the CVG and the Venezuelan government, this time for the annulment of:

a. The May 9, 1991, CVG /MEM/Mael agreement which netted Mael several mining properties on July 28, 1992, and again on July 22, 1993. The properties Mael acquired from the CVG formed part of a land package purchased by a Canadian exploration company at a value of over US$15 million dollars between 1993 and 1995.

b. The annulment of the legal transaction between Torres and the Culver-Lemon Estate on Oct.17 1991, where Torres confirms that he has no further claim against the estate of Culver-Lemon or the concession titles.

This legal action is still active.


8. The MINCA/ Placer Dome Dilemma 1997 / 2001

Once the contractual arrangements between the CVG and MINCA are completed, Placer Dome, under contract to MINCA, carries out an intensive exploration program on the property, confirming a reserve of over 8 million ounces of gold and the possibility of 20 million ounces by 1996. Ongoing exploration will later confirm 12 million ounces.

During August 1997, MINCA received the exploitation license and the necessary permits, secured financing for the development of the mine and commences construction.

During January 1998, MINCA suspends construction due to the ongoing KRY / Mael lawsuit against the CVG where Mael requests that the CVG /MINCA contract be annulled. Uncertainty over the outcome of the title challenge interrupts MINCA's financing and construction plans.

On June 11, 1998, The Venezuelan Supreme Court rules in favour of the CVG and MINCA resumes construction only to discontinue again due to steadily dropping gold prices which renders the whole project uneconomical and compromised financing. Low gold prices lead to an agreement to suspend construction between July 1999 and July 2001. Part of the suspension agreement is to engage an investment bank to facilitate an economic solution for the development of the project under the market conditions. MINCA presents several options of staged development during the first year of suspension, but can not secure approval from the CVG to proceed.

If the relationship with the CVG was proving difficult at times, it becomes absolutely impossible after Gen. Francisco Rangel Gomez assumes the Presidency of the CVG. While cooperation between Placer Dome and the CVG is now unattainable, Placer Dome’s rival, Crystallex, has no problem securing meetings with the CVG President.

The investment bank selected by the CVG to find a solution is unable to obtain a meeting with the CVG to present their recommendations. A general disinterest develops within the CVG towards finding a logical solution to the Las Cristinas crises as long as MINCA was involved. No one in the CVG appears to understand why, but a general campaign against MINCA and Placer Dome is underway. In April 2001, Placer Dome finally offers to turn the whole project over to the CVG for a royalty participation and future considerations. They ask Gen. Rangel Gomez for dialog to negotiate the transfer. The General informs Placer that he would study the issue and create an internal team to evaluate the offer, but then proceeds to ignore Placer Dome completely, never returning a phone call or replying to the numerous correspondences sent by Placer Dome in connection with the Cristinas.

On July 12, 2001, without ever having replied to Placer Dome’s offer, General Rangel Gomez declares to the National Press in Venezuela that the Las Cristinas would be developed, but without Placer Dome or MINCA.

0n July 13, 2001, the General's declarations were published in the Venezuelan newspapers.


9. Enter Vannessa Ventures

Vannessa makes an offer to purchase Placer Dome's interests in Venezuela and holds several meetings with Placer representatives. There they are told that the negotiations are by no means to be taken as exclusive and that Pacer Dome has other negotiations and offers to consider.

On July 13 2001 Vannessa closes the deal with Placer Dome and purchases Placer Dome de Venezuela, the company that holds 95% of MINCA.

MINCA seeks permission to continue with the construction of the mine and calls a directors' meeting to gain approval for a staged development with the first stage to be completed in August 2002, providing about 120 000 ounces of gold between 2002 and 2003.

Rangel Gomez frustrates the MINCA effort by prohibiting the MINCA directors appointed by the CVG to participate in the board meetings, therefore depriving MINCA of the quorum required under the corporate bylaws for the resolution to construct.

On August 6 2001 Rangel Gomez sends a notice informing MINCA that it is in noncompliance with the contract and has 90 days to file 4 semester reports and reinitiate construction or, if no arrangements are made, the CVG will cancel the contract.

MINCA files the reports and continuously requests meetings and board approval without avail. The general refuses to permit the MINCA directors to attend the meetings and refuses any dialog with MINCA.

MINCA informs the CVG that the CVG/MINCA contract contains a mechanism for cancellation (disputes resolution??) which calls for good faith in resolving conflict and arbitration as the exclusive and definite means for settling any conflict not resolved via dialog.

General Rangel Gomez replies that this provision does not apply to his corporation.

On Nov 6, 2001, Rangel Gomez advises that the MINCA/CVG contract is canceled since MINCA never filed the requested reports and did not commence construction. He states that MINCA is to turn over the assets and concessions to the CVG by Nov 13, 2001.

On Nov 7, 2001, MINCA informs the CVG that the contract can not be resolved without arbitration, that it did file the reports and that it was the CVG that failed to attend to the process which required their cooperation to authorize the re-initiation of activities.

Furthermore, MINCA points out that it held concession rights over the camp and the exploration and that the CVG has no authority in any case to take the installations without a resolution and authorization from the MEM. The MEM is the only institution authorized to undertake such an action, and then only in compliance with the law. The conditions needed to warrant such a takeover of MINCA's assets did not exist at that time.

On Nov. 16, 2001, General Rangel Gomez uses the Venezuelan military to remove MINCA from the property and confiscates all Vannessa de Venezuela and MINCA's assets without the benefit of a court order.

On May 3, 2002, MINCA files an action to annul the CVG cancellation of the contract and the effects of this CVG action.

On May 7, 2002, President Chavez publishes decree 1757 designating the Cristinas as project of national interest and orders the MEM to favor the CVG for the development of the mine.

On May 10, 2002, MINCA contacts the Venezuelan Foreign Minister regarding their obligation to honour international trade agreements.

On May 15, 2002, MINCA files a nullity action against Decree 1757. The 1999 Venezuelan Constitution clearly states that national interest projects require an act of law and are not to be designated by decree.

On May 24, 2002, MINCA sends documentation to KRY informing them of the legal actions and the fact that MINCA is defending its rights to the Las Cristinas.

On May 30, 2002, Vannessa, with assistance from the Canadian Embassy, files a formal notification of international arbitration under the Bilateral Trade Agreements (FIPPA).

0n June 18, 2002, the Supreme Court admits the nullity action against Presidential Decree 1757.

On June 19, 2002, the Supreme Court admits the nullity action against CVG contract cancellation of Nov. 7, 2001.

On August 6, 2002, Court admits legal action against Directors of MINCA appointed by the CVG for failing in their duties as directors.

On August 16, 2002, the Venezuelan Foreign Ministry confirms the beginning of the process filed by Vannessa and engages the Ministry of Trade and Commerce to assist in resolving the conflict.

On Sept 6, 2002, CVG announces the selection of KRY as operator of the Las Cristinas.

On Sept 19, 2002, MINCA files charges against Gen. Rangel Gomez with the General Attorney's office.

On Oct. 2, 2002, MINCA requests a congressional inquiry into the Las Cristinas case.

On Oct 9, 2002, the Venezuelan Controllers Commission forms a sub-commission to investigate the Las Cristinas case.

On Nov.14, 2002, MINCA files a nullity action against the CVG/KRY contract.

On Nov. 28, 2002, the political administrative chamber of the Supreme Court forwarded the nullity action against the CVG/KRY contract to the admittance chamber.

On Jan 23 2003, The Venezuelan Supreme Court admits the legal action filed by Vannessa de Venezuela against the CVG for their actions as a shareholder of MINCA.

On Feb. 4, 2003, MINCA files evidence in the nullity action against the CVG for canceling the contract.

On Feb. 11, 2003 the Supreme Court closes the period for evidence and opposition filings in the nullity action.

On Feb. 12, 2003, the CVG files an opposition to the MINCA evidence filed on Feb. 4, 2003.

On Feb. 12, 2003, MINCA objects to the CVG filing since it was submitted after the filing period was officially closed and, strangely enough, was filed during hours where court itself was closed.

On Feb. 26, 2003, the Supreme Court upholds a decision that an injunction for constitutional protection is not available to MINCA since its relationship with the CVG is contractual and the contract contains a mechanism for conflict resolution, specifically arbitration.

March 8, 2002, The Venezuelan daily papers, El Nacional and 2001, publish comments from the sub-commission investigating the Las Cristinas case, stating that Congress may request the cancellation of the CVG/KRY contract.

Footnote:

Mr. Franklin Hoet had been a principle player in the Las Cristina's issue and has acted on the issue for one party or another since the late 1980's.

The following documentation was located in the:

Third First Instance Court of Civil Matters (Currently: Third Chamber of the Children and Adolescent Protection Court of Caracas)

File 13.884

This File contains the procedure of unclaimed state, the nullity action filed by the curator of Ms. Culver- Lemon’s estate, against the transfer of rights on Cristina 4 and 6 executed by Adrianza to Torres and Torres to Mael. The procedure of unclaimed state started on July 30, 1986, the state was declared officially unclaimed in September 1986, and the nullity action was formally filed on May 30, 1989.

This file ended with the decision issued on February 26, 1991, that declared the nullity of the transfer of rights, and sustained that Ms. Culver-Lemon had always been the sole owner of the alluvial gold concessions, Cristinas 4 and 6.

Also included was an action filed at the beginning of 1989 by a Panama company called Toboga Investments, who claimed the payment of a loan for US$ 1millon, given to Ms. Culver-Lemon. Later Toboga assigned its credit against Ms. Culver-Lemon to a Company called Inversora Cristina, 4, 5, 6 and 7, C.A. This action was later dismissed by the court.

In this international action, the company was represented by Duque Corredor (Hoet associate) and Inversora Cristina was represented by Franklin Hoet.

Inversora Cristina 4, 5, 6 7, C.A., is a company incorporated in Roscio Municipality, Bolivar State. Details of the company are currently being requested. As part of the allegations of the files, it is know that Mr. Hoet was President of this company in January 20, 1989.

There is another company called Inversora Cristina, C.A., incorporated in Caracas in January 20, 1989, by Ms. Culver-Lemon, holder of 90% of the shares, and Humberto Quevedo Oviedo holder of 10% of the shares. The Administrator was Mr. Adrianza who was also the legal representative. It is important to be remembered that Ms. Culver-Lemon was dead by the time the company was incorporated.

The capital stock of Inversora Cristina, C.A. was paid with the concession titles to Cristina 4 and 6, by Ms. Culver-Lemon. Original 1964 Official Gazettes were submitted as part of the file in the Mercantile Registry.

According to the above findings, Mr. Hoet was actively aware of the Cristina situation, including the decision that cancelled the transfer of rights to Mael, since 1989.

In 1996 Mr. Hoet, acting on behalf of Mael, requested the Supreme Court to execute the decision of 1991, ordering the publication of the transfer of rights to Mael in the Official Gazette. Mr. Hoet was perfectly aware of the 1991 decision that cancelled such a transfer since he was part of the file where the decision was taken.

Later Mr. Hoet, acting again on behalf of Mael, filing the legal action against the CVG and the MEM resolution that had such a devastating effect on Las Cristinas from 1997 to 2003.