Free Answer to Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv—O0762-SLR Document 2-4 Filed 11/O2/2005 Page1 0f3

Case 1:05-cv—O0762-SLR Document 2-4 Filed 11/O2/2005 Page 2 of 3
- `{a;i2/up 19:27 FAX PARCELS {Nc (////, egEE;\
IN THE GNITEB STATES oxswgrcr compa J
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LNC·rNVESTMENT5,,INCa. .,,. : _
Petitioner, Q
V. : Misc. Action Ho. Ol—i3é—JJF
THE REPUBLIC GF NICARAGUA, Q
Respondent. : _ '
MEMQRANDUM ORDER
Presently before me is a Motion To Quesh The Writ of
Attachment filed by Megatel de Nicaragua, LLC (9.I. 56}.
?etitiomer, LNG Investments, Inc. has filed an opposition paper
{D.I. 57} and a motion to file a surreply brief (D.I. G5}
I have considered the perties’ arguments and conclude
that the motion should be granted. The parties know the
procedural history of this dispute, and I see no reason to repeat
_it here- Ic reaching my decision I have considered the contention
by LNG that Megstel has not met its burden to establish certain
factual assertions made by Megetei in support of its legal
arguments. £D.I- 57 p. 3}. However, I have chosen to credit and A
accept, in the context of the present motion, the sworn
declarations of the Nicarag¤en_representative and Professor
Hernandez concerning the risk of double liability faced by l
Megatel. On this issue, I find that such e risk is present.
LNG has attempted to rebut the evidence offered by
Megetel; however, I find the Beclaraticn of 5.%. Uribe to be
unpersuesive- Specifically, I agree with Megetel‘s
characterization of Mr. Uribe's assertions:
_ If LNG cannot even find counsel in Nicaragua
to enforce its supposed rights against the
EXHIBITC .

Case 1:05-cv—O0762-SLR Document 2-4 Filed 11/O2/2005 Page 3 of 3
· lisggzxqg zczz? FAX PARGELS 1Nc =m¤¤s
government, why should anyone beiieve ihat
Megatel will be successful not cniy obtaining
counsel but prevailing before the Nicaxaguan
* ` h ¤:¤¤x€’§‘. . . {viii. 66; *·
In sum, I find that Megatel is exposed to double
liability simile; to the gaxnishees in the eases cited by
Megatel. See West v. Eakeg, 510 P.2d 73},733 (hxiz. 1973) and
Negtzei v. Weitzel 230 P. 1106 (Ariz. 1924).
NOW THEREFORE, FOR THE REASONS DISCGSSBD, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED THAT: _
1) Megetel's Mctica T0 Quash the Writ of Attachment
{D-]; 56} is GRANTED, ‘ _ I
2) LNC's Motion T0 File A Susxeply Brief (D-E. 65) is
GRANTED. ~
IY-·*’|g""Gq' ` tls,. gh
.n,¤:;m s m ISTRIC'? {3