Norway: Don’t Mess with TEXAS!
Texans’ don’t need to Import Corruption.
Corporate Corruption is a Substantial Cost for Law Abiding Businesses and Customers. Corporate Corruption Pollutes the Global Market Place.
PGS ASA investors who are not entirely pleased with the company performance since 2013 (at least) should DEMAND a thorough police investigation of the PGS ASA board of directors. Their alleged actions warrant termination, criminal prosecution and a class action suit for damages. The board of directors corruption revealed by whistleblower SDK has damaged PGS ASA market value substantially.
The legal agreements between PGS ASAs UK affiliate, PGS Exploration UK Limited and SDK are governed by the laws of England. The Confidentiality terms and conditions prohibiting parties from disparaging one another were included within the original employment contract signed in 2010 as well as the termination settlement agreement/contract signed 5 December 2013. The legal bar for disparagement is much lower than defamation. Yet, PGS ASA never chose to litigate on contractual breaches governed by the laws of England? In April 2018, PGS Exploration UK Limited Secretary, Carl Richards, hired Thai legal firm Duensing Kippen to file criminal defamation charges while the foreign worker (USA citizen), victim of crimes and whistleblower resided in Thailand. How is this legal and not a breach in the original terms and conditions of the contracts governed by the laws of England? Why is this not fiduciary negligence for the Secretary of a English company not to act on breaches in the legal terms and conditions of a signed legal instrument? There can be no defamation without disparagement. Further, under English law, defamation is not a crime. The whistleblower and crime victim regarded the threats from Carl Richards and Duensing Kippen lawyer Tippaya Moonmanee to be extortion / blackmail. Further, how can an agent of a company governed by the laws of England give legal authority to a (foreign) lawyer to bypass legal agreements that they are bound to in their resident country. PGS ASA does not list any subsidiaries in Thailand.
THE REASON THAT PGS ASA USED (ILLEGALLY) THE THAI CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WAS TO DESTROY EVIDENCE AND AVOID THE COURTS OF ENGLAND!
PGS ASA continue their offenses against a Whistlebblower
SDK had stated within several publications that he was a whistleblower and therefore his content was legal and protected under the terms and conditions of the Confidentiality clauses both in the original employment contract and the 5 December 2013 termination settlement agreement / contract. In fact, the intent of these public disclosures was to force PGS ASA to act on the terms and conditions of their contracts. The main topic of the public disclosures was that PGS ASA is uttering defamatory forged documents as SDK personal data. This fraudulent data was illegally used to support a termination settlement contract under false pretenses to the detriment of a whistleblower who had revealed several compliance and legal breaches through SDKs submission of a workplace grievance, 20 September 2013. The law providing legal protection for whistleblowers which is referenced within both the terms and conditions of these contracts is the UK Public Interests Disclosure Act 1998 (PIDA). I do not believe that litigation initiated on behalf of an agent of / or an English company has the authority to take away that legal right. An English company actions cannot be above the laws of England. Therefore, I have always regarded the PGS ASA subsidized litigation in Thailand against a whistleblower as illegal. The legal and contractual obligation of PGS ASA UK is to investigate whistleblowing claims and not to retaliate against the whistleblower, SDK. Retalitation against whistleblowers is illegal.
SDK believes that his original whistleblowing claim was obstructed through a confidence fraud. PGS ASA, represented by the UK affiliate of firm Watson Farley & Williams and SDK legal counsel, Landau, Zeffert and Weir Solicitors (LZW) [now Landau Law] who acted as a double-agent, participated in a confidence fraud where uttered forged defamatory documents were created and / or processed to support an illegal termination contract. SDK has alleged and published online evidence that supports claims that PGS ASA bribed all of the lawyers involved with negotiating the illegal settlement contract which obstructed and deprived SDK his legal rights under English law and contract to file and process through the steps a workplace grievance. The workplace grievance submitted by SDK met the standard of whistleblowing defined by PIDA. These illegal actions facilitated the illegal termination of employment of a foreign worker whistleblower. PGS ASA processed the forged and defamatory content with the sinister and criminal intention to blacklist their victim of crimes from future employment in the geophysical exploration industry. The corrupt board of directors participated in this fraud of the marine seismic industry. Their illegal retaliation of a whistleblower was carried out to preserve a ficticious principled company reputation which cared for the health and safety concerns of its workers. Following this confidence fraud, PGS ASA publicly announced their membership in the UN Global Compact (23 December 2013) which admonishes every and all actions which PGS ASA had just participated in! PGS ASA even had the audacity to feature one of the main criminals in their confidence fraud, Simon Cather, Marine Contract Africa Regional President, as their anti-corruption role model within the PGS ASA 2013 Responsibility Report! This punctuates PGS ASAs disrespect for customers and shareholders through publishing known falsehoods intended to entice investment and confidence in PGS ASA. PGS ASA did not only defraud and defame a whistleblower, but defrauded the entire marine seismic industry. PGS ASA and Watson Farley & Williams’ NOT invoking the Confidentiality Clauses in the Contracts that they formed demonstrates either a reckless disregard for the PGS ASA reputation that they have a fiduciary responsility to protect or active participation in crimes against a whistleblower. Thus, any damages to PGS ASA reputation is in fact in either case the fault of the PGS ASA board of directors.
Why did PGS ASA wait until my blog post articles became defamatory and not simply disparaging? My initial post was on LinkedIn Pulse 3 July 2015.
No One Had ever Complained to me Directly Regarding Online Publications Prior to 26 March 2018
A person purporting to be PGS Exploration UK Limited company secretary, Carl Richards, first threatened legal action as a private person from an unverified personal e-mail account. Had my content been in breach of any legal agreements, Carl Richards on behalf of PGS Exploration UK Limited should have referenced the signed legal agreements governed by the laws of England and not litigation in Thailand. “Carl Richards” who sent this e-mail never verified his identity nor answered a plethorad of legal questions. “Carl Richards” was asking for the removal of posted articles with his name mentioned only. Whistleblowing articles had been posted since 3 July 2015. Under the UK Limitation Act 1980, the applicable limitation for defamation is one year from the date of accrual of the claim, which in libel claims accrued at the time of publication. This would mean no action could be made on my publications predating March 2017. Further, PGS ASA had never fulfilled their fiduciary obligation to investigate my whistleblowing claims. PGS ASA compliance was contacted multiple times from April – September 2016 (these communications have also been posted) and provided content and links to content to reference for comment. PGS ASA never even commented on any content. I do not believe that Carl Richards could legally launch a claim divorced from his legal position with PGS Exploration UK Limited. PGS ASA, as usual, never answered any of these questions.
In September 2018, PGS ASA, delivered “Legal Claims” to SDK in Thailand. PGS ASA had never commented or reached out to SDK about his publications prior to delivering “criminal defamation” charges through through legal firm Duensing Kippen. Duensing Kippen lawyer Tippaya Moonmanee had never stated she was representing PGS ASA prior to this time. In fact, Carl Richards had been explicit in the fact that he was prosecuting his case apart from PGS ASA as an individual. Two criminal complaints were delivered to the address where I was residing in Thailand just after I had departed. I was not there to receive these threatening “Legal Notices” which were written in the Thai language. The summons’ were also written and e-mailed to SDK in the Thai language to SDK (or his relatives) in Thailand. Neither Carl Richards not PGS ASA had ever specifically identified defamatory content. PGS ASA wanted all SDK publications to be removed and refer to all content published on private site nopgs.com erroneously as “defamatory.” I considered this global misrepresentation of my legal and protected public disclosure (under English law) to be fraudulent.
Lawyer Tippaya Monmanee with Thailand legal firm Duensing Kippen contacted me by e-mail in May 2018 threatening legal action on behalf of Carl Richards. At this point, PGS ASA had never answered several important questions. However, as I was residing in Thailand at the time, I had to take these e-mails seriously. I did not then, and do not now, regard the litigation initiated in Thailand as legal. Defamation implies a false statement. I had taken care not to write known falsehoods and also supplemented my allegations with evidence (email and other time-tagged records). From April – September 2016, SDK sent several emails with content or links to my legally protected public disclosure to PGS ASA Compliance Hotline. PGS ASA never acknowledged nor investigated my evidence supplemented accusations of criminal and non-compliant acts by parties who processed the 20 September 2013 grievance / whistleblowing document. PGS ASA and Carl Richards’ objective was to force the removal / de-publication of evidence of PGA ASA board of directors and executive non-compliant and criminal acts. The new litigation is sponsored only by PGS ASA. Carl Richards, who initiated the sham litigation, has dropped out of site and is not included in the more recent “Legal Notices” which falsely claim my legal and protected public disclosure under English law is “criminal defamation” in Thailand.
I believe that PGS ASA, Watson Farley & Williams, Duensing Kippen, and Carl Richards are defrauding the Thai criminal justice system, the global geophysical industry, PGS ASA investors and stakeholders, and of course SDK through their vexatious litigation in Thailand against SDK. Only criminal morons would need to translate content published in English into Thai to prove defamation! Shareholders and investors must demand a thorough criminal investigation.
PGS ASA is actively continuing their misinformation campaign through labeling SDK published content as “defamatory” and not sincere legally protected public disclosure. PGS ASA continue to their defamation and defrauding of a foreign worker whistleblower. PGS ASA is able to promote personnel (bribe) to protect the false narrative and the PGS ASA board of directors from explanation and accountability. PGS ASA board of directors and executives are knowingly misrepresenting SDK personal data that they process as legal and accurate even though the forged documents do not bare the signature of the data subject and contradict facts contained within e-mail documents. SDK personal data being processed by PGS ASA does not meet the most basic legal standard or best practices. Norway’s government has been anemic in their actions to investigate whistleblower claims and protect the economic interests of PGS ASA investors. It seems that the Norwegian government sponsors, protects and promotes corrupt corporate executives in order to preserve Norway’s false reputation as a much lower corruption country to entice business.