Threat of US law suits dismissed as "nonsense"

by DOUGLAS SHEPHERD

A further threat by businessman Martin Frost to raise court actions in Delaware against individuals who have been forwarding his shareholder letters to non-investors including this blogging site has been greeted with contempt in some quarters.

Mr Frost, the chairman of "disruptive technology" company Avocet Natural Capital (ANC) has repeatedly expressed his annoyance and displeasure after the contents of his many missives have been shared with outsiders before being exposed to a wider audience.

Each of Mr Frost's updates to the 650 shareholders contains a stern warning not to forward the material to others as each email is fitted with a type of tracking device.

In recent weeks Mr Frost and his fellow director Dr Bob Jennings have claimed to be in negotiations with wealthy investors who are said to be ready to sink tens of millions of pounds into Avocet's 'revolutionary' fuel concepts although the identity of the potential stakeholders has yet to be revealed.

In an email circulated this week - and seen by Not Just Sheep & Rugby - Mr Frost declares: "This coming Thursday’s shareholder letter will brighten most folk’s lives.

"The small delay is occasioned by the perceived malice of a few shareholders along with some non-shareholder party’s subliminal data and legal manipulation for nefarious purposes. Fortunately, Mrs. Eirlys Lloyd [the Avocet company secretary] was able to recognise and dismember this hawk psychology of fake news pushers and so rectify.

"That said, our new investors are appalled at the lack of Avocet truth pedalled on social media, on forums, and on blogs by people who should know better. So, on Thursday I shall advise who receives what and how our new investors will curtail the activities of naysayers. And yes, I do confirm that Delaware Counsel in USA is instructed to bring suit in Wilmington against those of you who breach email privacy."

One person with shares in Avocet told us: "It looks as though I'll be on my way to the United States once the extradition process is completed. I find these threats quite intimidating although I fail to see how an American court has any jurisdiction over events that take place in Great Britain".

Meanwhile the prospect of Delaware justice being meted out to miscreants who have crossed Avocet management now features on the 'Avocet Shareholders Independent Forum' which poses the question "Where has your money gone?"

In a strongly worded and detailed post, a contributor advises Mr Frost to lay off making threats involving proposed legal suits in the USA.

The poster writes: "I am in receipt of your October 25th, 2020 e-mail containing your threats of legal action in Delaware against UK shareholders forwarding your e-mailed shareholder letters to non-shareholders. I will attempt to educate you with regard to US law.

"Your contention is that Delaware has jurisdiction over matters arising from you, as a UK resident, sending an e-mail message to a server located in Delaware which then distributes that e-mail to the Avocet shareholders via an e-mail list that you provided. Legal experts strongly disagree with you."

The writer - clearly with extensive knowledge of US law - explains: “In order to file a lawsuit in the United States, the court hearing the case must have jurisdiction over the subject matter of the issue and over the defendant(s). For a court to have personal jurisdiction over a person, the court must conclude that the person has 'minimum contacts' within the forum state.

"A defendant must purposely avail himself or herself within the forum state by being present in the state, doing business within the state, or maintaining certain activities within the state. While you may be doing business in the state by maintaining the Avocet e-mail list on a server there, the proposed 'defendants' certainly do not.  They simply do not meet the jurisdiction requirement." 

 The post goes on to claim that a shareholder in the UK forwarding shareholder letters to a UK non-shareholder such as Bill Chisholm [owner of this site] would not in any way have an effect within the state of Delaware, so such action would not meet this effects test either. 

"Any legal action taken in Delaware on the basis that you claim you are taking would fail under US law. 

"The ANC Non-Disclosure Agreement. This is dead simple. There isn’t one. There may have been an Avocet Infinite NDA at one time, but you have gone to great lengths to make ANC a totally separate company.  An agreement cannot be transferred from one company to another without the consent of all the parties to the agreement. Please stop threatening the shareholders with what is nonsense from a legal perspective."