melika969 wrote:Dillon wrote:At the end of the day, a CEO of a business enterprise in Dubai, failed to deliver the commercial product he was contracted to deliver, he then fled the country, wrote and published a biased and uncorroborated version (Fiction) of events leading up to his flight. Discounting the court case in Dubai, proven guilty of ‘Breach of Contract’ in Florida and claims to have been proven innocent?
Well put Dillon! Agreed totally!
Sorry, but this is sadly inaccurate and uninformed ...
A submarine is a life support technology, not a dot.com dating website, and to take such an idea from inception to delivery in 5 years would be a monumental task for anyone.
Everyone, bar none, seems to neglect to recall that this was a start up business. Istithmar, the parent even had it marked on its books as an incubator company (Istithmar Ventures), with revenue anticipated by 2010.
The quickest way to kill an fledgling business is to demand a revenue stream through sales (even Sultan bin Sulayem knew this). Try to remember that this was not and still is not an existing leisure sector.
The subs delivered from Seahorse to Nakheel were at best "advanced prototypes" and understood to be so, Herve's "crime" was to fail to amend the delivery contracts in 2004, the basis of the Judge awarding summary judgement against Seahorse Submarines, not Herve, in 2011.
In order that you are better informed, here are the charges and the rulings, by Judge OR Jury, as read out in court
(1) Breach of Contract - failure to deliver One Stingray submarine in condition described in contract -
JUDGE ruled in summary judgement -
Yes in favour of
plaintiff(2) Breach of Contract - failure to deliver One Discovery submarine in condition described in contract
-
JUDGE ruled in summary judgement -
Yes in favour of
plaintiff(3) Breach of Contract - failure to deliver One Gobi submarine in condition described in contract -
JURY ruled -
NO in favour of
Defendant, Seahorse Submarines
(4) Fraudulent Misrepresentation - in that Jaubert did commit fraud by misrepresenting his ability to design, build & deliver submarines -
JURY ruled -
NO in favour of
Defendant, Jaubert
(5) Negligent Misrepresentation - in that Jaubert was negligent in his responsibilities with Seahorse Submarines by failing to disclose that he was unable to design build and deliver submarines -
JURY ruled -
NO in favour of
Defendant, Jaubert
(6) Breach of Fiduciary Duty - in that Jaubert did breach any specific or general fiduciary responsibility owed by a Director or Officer of a company to his employer, in his dealings with Seahorse Submarines and the procurement of inventory, goods and services -
JURY ruled -
NO in favour of
Defendant, Jaubert
(7) Conversion - in that Jaubert did illegally or improperly take something (money) that was not rightfully his and convert the ownership of that thing (money) to his own benefit or for his own use -
JURY ruled -
NO in favour of
Defendant, Jaubert
& Finally
(8) Abuse of Process - in that Plaintiff (Dubai World, Nakheel, Palm Marine & Exomos) did unduly influence or cause the due process of law in Dubai to be used for some purpose other than that for which it specifically exists -
JURY ruled -
NO in favour of
Plaintiff, Dubai World
That any of you would willingly chose of your own freewill to believe Dubai World spin and PR says more about your own lack of intelligence and ability to think than it every will about Herve and his escape. If you need more facts in order to form an understanding then please feel free to ask, until then though please keep your IQ under your cabbage leaf and restrict yourselves to writing under an assumed name in 5Days.
Peace
-- Thu Mar 03, 2011 12:32 am --
JoeTGF wrote:Herve - I don't have anything against you so don't take this personally.
First I think that BluOrbs question is fair, reasonable and fairly precise - easy to answer and hardly stressful. Also regarding invoicing for the parts - if you worked for them as an employee and in that capacity procured parts for them and inflated the bills to earn yourself something than that is not business its dishonest in my opinion so I don't agree with BM's garage analogy - it would I expect go against any duties you would have as an employee to serve them faithfully and achieve the best price for them. I also find this confusing when you say you paid for parts upfront and were reimbursed later - were you an employee or a contractor? I don't know of any employees that do that.
Joe
Let me reply as Herve is otherwise engaged
Count (6) Breach of Fiducuary Duty - covers this issue
Herve & Seahorse DID both order and pay for hundreds of parts and materials in advance (up front) with the agreement of Dubai World management, and produced evidence in court in support of the knowledge of this practice. fact - The Chairman of DW signed off the payments.
Why was this so?
If you have ever been a vendor to a DW business then you would not need to ask this question but in short, it takes months to generate an order and up to 6 months to generate a payment. That does not fit with a development company that needs technical equipment yesterday to complete a task, or sit well with high tech companies in the US who are used to prompt payment.
Herve produced written evidence that supported, and the jury agreed in its verdict, that a service charge of 10% was to be added to the invoices to cover Seahorses' out of pocket expense in paying, sometimes months, in advance of reimbursement. It is called the time value of money or put another way, why should someone else pay to run a Dubai World company ?
