May 05
Full text of the complaint filed against Drummond
based on charges involving racketeering activity.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
LLANOS OIL EXPLORATION LTD.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DRUMMOND COMPANY, INC.,
DRUMMOND LTD., ALVARO URIBE,
FABIO ECHEVERRI, ALBERTO CALDERON,
VICTOR EDUARDO PEREZ, ISAAC YANOVICH,
AND MARTHA MANOSALVA
Defendants.
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Llanos Oil Exploration, Ltd., by its undersigned counsel, hereby
sues Defendants Drummond Company, Inc., Drummond, Ltd., Alvaro Uribe, Fabio
Echeverri, Alberto Calderon,Victor Eduardo Perez, Isaac Yanovich, and Martha
Manosalva states as follows:
1. This is an action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and Florida common law seeking the recovery of damages
incurred by Llanos Oil as a result of an ongoing organized scheme that
Defendants have perpetrated in order to steal certain oil rights to which
Plaintiff had contractual rights in Colombia, South America.
2. In perpetrating their scheme, Defendants have broken United States and
international law, relied upon theft, abuses of power under the color of
law, intimidation, threats of violence, and false imprisonment.
3. The scheme perpetrated by Defendants will have, and was intended to have,
wide ranging consequences in the United States, where a substantial portion
of the proceeds of Defendants' ill-gotten gains will be distributed and
where the oil to be recovered by Plaintiff was to be delivered. The United
States is also the country of origin for most of the companies with which
Plaintiff contracted to drill and ship the oil and there will be a financial
impact in the United States for that reason as well.
4. Further still, some of the Defendants have acted under the color of
Colombian law and control law enforcement authorities and the judiciary in
Colombia. As a consequence, Plaintiff has no alternative forum in which to
receive a fair hearing in Colombia. Accordingly, this Court can, and should,
hear this suit.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has federal question jurisdiction for the claims for relief
arising under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq. pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) and 28
2
U.S.C. § 1331. In addition, this Court has jurisdiction over the Defendants
who reside in Colombia, South America pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965.
6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction
over the claims for relief arising under Florida law.
7. The Court also has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332
over the claims against Drummond Company, Inc. and Drummond, Ltd. (sometimes
collectively referred to hereinafter a "Drummond" or "the Drummond
companies") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because Plaintiff is a citizen of a
foreign state and Drummond is a citizen of Alabama and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000.
8. Venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1965(5) because Defendant Drummond Company, Inc. has an agent and transacts
business affairs in the Middle District of Florida.
THE PARTIES
9. Plaintiff, Llanos Oil Exploration, Ltd. ("Llanos Oil"), is a corporation
registered in the Isle of Mann and with an independent branch office
registered in Bogotá, Colombia. Llanos Oil is an oil exploration company
that conducts its exploration and drilling activities in Colombia, South
America. Llanos Oil's principal place of business is Orlando, Florida, where
its financial operations are centered and where its investor 3
relations, public relations, and coordination of corporate activities are
conducted.
10. Defendant Drummond Company, Inc. was incorporated in Alabama and is
engaged primarily in the mining and shipment of coal. It is a closely-held
corporation owned by the Drummond family, and is controlled in its
day-to-day operations by Garry Drummond. Its principal place of business is
located at 530 Beacon Parkway, Suite 900, Birmingham, Jefferson County,
Alabama 35209. Among other places, Drummond Company, Inc. owns and operates
a large coal mine, rail line and port in Colombia, South America. The
operations in Colombia are financed and managed from the United States
headquarters of Drummond Company, Inc, and the profits from the Colombia
operations are transferred to one or more bank accounts held by Defendant
Drummond Company, Inc. and/or Garry Drummond in the United States. Defendant
Drummond Company, Inc. is subject to the in personam jurisdiction of this
Court under, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d) and § 48.193(2), Fla. Stat.,
because it is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within the
State of Florida.
11. Defendant Drummond Ltd. was incorporated in Alabama and has its
principal place of business at 3000 Highway 78, Jasper, Walker County,
Alabama 35501. It is wholly-owned by Drummond Company, Inc. Drummond Ltd. 4
manages the day-to-day operations of the Drummond coal operations in
Colombia, but at all times operates under the complete ownership, direction
and control of Defendant Drummond Company, Inc, and Garry Drummond. Drummond
Ltd. lists Drummond Company, Inc. as its Chief Executive. Garry Drummond
caused Defendant Drummond Company, Inc. to create Defendant Drummond Ltd.,
which is a wholly-owned, undercapitalized alter ego of Defendant Drummond
Company, Inc. totally under the dominance and control of Defendant Drummond
Company, Inc. and Garry Drummond. Defendant Drummond, Ltd. is subject to the
in personam jurisdiction of this Court under, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. §
1965(d) and § 48.193(2), Fla. Stat., because through its alter ego Drummond
Company, Inc. it is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within
the State of Florida.
12. Defendant Alvaro Uribe ("Uribe") is President of Colombia, South America
and is a resident of that country. Uribe is the head of Department of
Administrativo de Seguridad ("DAS"), a governmental security organization
that was used to perpetrate the organized fraud that is the subject of this
complaint. Uribe, both personally and though his agent, Fabio Echeverri, has
used his office and his control of DAS to illegally divert Llanos Oil's
mineral rights to the Drummond companies in exchange for his own personal
gain. Uribe is also utilizing paramilitary forces financed by the Drummond 5
companies to quell dissent and maintain his political power in Colombia.
Uribe is subject to the in personam jurisdiction of this Court under, inter
alia, 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d) and § 48.193(1(a)), Fla. Stat., because a member
of the enterprise charged herein is found within the State of Florida and
Uribe, personally or through an agent, committed a tortious act within the
State of Florida.
13. Defendant Fabio Echeverri ("Echeverri") is Uribe's chief of staff, and
the chairman of the Board of Directors of Ecopetrol, a Colombian ministry
that, at all material times, administered oil leases in Colombia. Echeverri,
along with Uribe, controls DAS. Echeverri orchestrated a change to the
Colombian Constitution which for the first time in history enabled a
Columbia President - i.e., Uribe -- to run for a second term in 2005. In
addition, Echeverri is an agent of the Drummond companies and has worked
with Drummond and paramilitary organizations to increase Drummond's profits
so that the profits can be shared with the Defendants. Echeverri, acting
through the enterprise described herein, has used threats and other unlawful
acts to install Echeverri's puppets in crucial government offices so that
Echeverri could maintain power and they could increase the profits of other
members of the enterprise. Echeverri is subject to the in personam
jurisdiction of this Court under, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d) and §
48.193(1(a)), Fla. Stat., because a member of the enterprise charged herein
6 is found within the State of Florida and Echeverri, personally or through an
agent, committed a tortious act within the State of Florida.
14. Defendant Alberto Calderon ("Calderon") is the former President of
Ecopetrol and is a resident of Colombia, South America. Calderon played an
instrumental role in fabricating a basis to terminate Llanos Oil's "Las
Nieves" oil lease and in the misappropriation of $750,000 from Llanos Oil in
Miami, Florida. Caldeon is subject to the in personam jurisdiction of this
Court under, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 1965(d) and § 48.193(1(a)), Fla. Stat.,
because a member of the enterprise charged herein is found within the State
of Florida and Calderon, personally or through an agent, committed a
tortious act within the State of Florida.
15. Defendant Victor Eduardo Perez ("Perez") is the former vice president of
the Exploration and Production Division of Ecopetrol. Perez fabricated a
basis to terminate the Llanos Oil's "Las Nieves" oil lease and
misappropriated the $750,000 from Llanos Oil in Miami, Florida. Perez is
subject to the in personam jurisdiction of this Court under, inter alia, 18
U.S.C. § 1965(d) and § 48.193(1(a)), Fla. Stat., because a member of the
enterprise charged herein is found within the State of Florida and Perez,
personally or through an agent, committed a tortious act within the State of
Florida. 7
16. Defendant Isaac Yanovich ("Yanovich") is the current President of
Ecopetrol and is a resident of Colombia, South America. Yanovich played an
instrumental role in fabricating a basis to terminate Llanos Oil's
"Guatapuri" oil lease aka "Las Nieves"oil lease. Yanovich is subject to the
in personam jurisdiction of this Court under, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. §
1965(d) and § 48.193(1(a)), Fla. Stat., because a member of the enterprise
charged herein is found within the State of Florida and Yanovich, personally
or through an agent, committed a tortious act within the State of Florida.
17. Defendant Martha Manosalva ("Manosalva") is the current Fiscal Tercera
Delgada equivalent of a U.S. District Attorney and is a resident of
Colombia, South America . Manosalva played an instrumental role in
fabricating a basis to terminate the lease of Llanos Oil and wrongfully
caused the detention of Hendrik van Bilderbeek. Manosalva is subject to the
in personam jurisdiction of this Court under, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. §
1965(d) and § 48.193(1(a)), Fla. Stat., because a member of the enterprise
charged herein is found within the State of Florida and Manosalva,
personally or through an agent, committed a tortious act within the State of
Florida.
OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES
18. The Empresa Colombiana de Petroleos ("Ecopetrol") is an agency of the
Colombian government that oversees oil exploration and exploitation of 8
mineral rights for oil production in Colombia. Several of the Defendants are
former and current officers of Ecopetrol. At all material times, Echeverri
effectively controlled Ecopetrol through his position as Chairman of the
Board and by virtue of his alignment with Uribe. Ecopetrol has acted as the
agent of the Defendants and Defendants have used Ecopetrol to perpetrate the
scheme at issue. Ecopetrol's banking activities and much of its financial
operations are centered in New York and Miami, Florida. Through Ecopetrol,
the Defendants and/or their agents committed tortious acts in Miami in
furtherance of the scheme at issue in this case.
19. The Department of Administrativo de Seguridad ("DAS") is a governmental
secret police organization under the control of the Colombian Presidential
Palace, and has, at all material times, been directed by Uribe and/or
Echeverri. Acting at the command of Uribe and Echeverri, DAS has fabricated
charges and disseminated false information concerning Llanos Oil and its
principals in an effort to convert the mineral rights that were leased by
Llanos Oil.
20. Garry Drummond, a resident of the State of Alabama, is the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Defendant Drummond Company,
Inc. Garry Drummond is active in Drummond's operations in Colombia, and
personally deals with issues relating to collective bargaining 9
States, and then either personally implements them or orders others employed
by Defendant Drummond Company, Inc. and/or Defendant Drummond, Ltd. to
implement them in Colombia. Garry Drummond's complete control over and
ownership of Defendant Drummond Company, Inc. and Defendant Drummond
negotiations and relations with paramilitary forces used by the company.
Garry Drummond makes decisions relating to the Colombia operations in the
United Ltd. makes these companies his alter ego and makes the companies the
alter ego of each other.
CONDUCT AND EFFECTS IN THE UNITED STATES
21. Beginning in or about 1999 and continuing through the present, all of
the Defendants conspired, confederated, and agreed to a scheme whereby,
through various unlawful acts, they would steal mineral rights leased to
Llanos Oil. The Defendants purposefully directed their activities towards
the United States. The Defendants, either personally or through one or more
agents, committed overt acts within the United States, including the theft
of $750,000 from an escrow account that Llanos Oil had opened at Barclay's
Bank in Miami, Florida and the theft of $100,000 that Llanos Oil deposited
into Ecopetrol's ABNAMRO bank account in Miami, Florida. Those thefts in the
United States caused substantial injury to Llanos Oil's operations. Indeed,
the escrow deposit was the cornerstone to a billion barrel plus oil lease.
Further still, both ecopetrol 10 and Drummond maintain accounts in the United States
where profits of the scheme at issue were expected to be diverted.
22. Furthermore, at least part of the planning of the scheme occurred in the
offices of the Drummond companies in the United States. Further still, as a
result of their theft of Llanos Oil's mineral rights, Defendants' acts had
reasonably foreseeable and substantial effects in the United States,
including the prevention of Llanos Oil from carrying out the terms of
contracts with various United States companies that were to assist in the
production of oil and the delivery of oil within the United States. Finally,
the Defendants have fabricated information that they delivered to
governmental authorities in the United States and thereby intentionally
interfered with Llanos Oil's United States' operations.
23. As a result of the Defendants' conduct within the United States and
their conduct in Colombia that has had and will have substantial effects in
the United States, this Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this
controversy and in personam jurisdiction over the Defendants who reside in
Colombia.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
Llanos Oil
23. Hendrik van Bilderbeek (a United States Resident) and Albert van
Bilderbeek (a United States citizen, Florida resident, Osceola County) 11
are principals of Llanos Oil. The van Bilderbeek brothers descend from a
highly respected family of Shell Oil engineers. Hendrik attended The School
of Mines in Colorado where he majored in oil engineering. Hendrik made his
career with Shell Oil and was involved in intensive oil exploration
activities in various regions of the world. Albert and Hendrik have been
working diligently with Colombian officials for nearly twenty years in their
quest to discover oil in Colombia.
24. In September of 1984, the van Bilderbeek brothers and other
stockholder/investors purchased Llanos Oil. There are fifty-three
stockholders (outside of Albert and Hendrik van Bilderbeek), sixteen royalty
holders and thirty-one lenders, some of who are also stockholders. Together,
these individuals have invested and placed at risk in excess of ten million
dollars USD for the purpose of exploring oil in the Cesar Basin of Colombia.
Llanos Oil explores Colombia
25. Since 1984, Llanos Oil has spent millions of dollars conducting seismic
studies and other ecological searches to ascertain the whereabouts and
quantity of oil located within the Cesar Basin of Colombia. Llanos Oil has
also spent enormous sums to build roads and develop an infrastructure for
transporting the oil when it is found. 12
26. Llanos Oil has contracted primarily with US firms or Colombian
subsidiaries of US firms to perform the exploration operations in Colombia.
Consequently, there has been more than a minimal impact in the United States
as a result of Llanos Oil's Colombian operations.
27. Llanos Oil has explored various regions of Colombia, including the
following:
- Llanos Oil explored the Surales Association
Contract in the Llanos region between 1984 and 1987. It conducted 466 km of
seismic studies in that region.
- During the same time period, Llanos Oil explored
the Canaparo Sur Association Contract in the Llanos region. This exploration
covered over 700 km of seismic studies and five exploratory wells were
drilled in the area.
- In 1986, Llanos Oil obtained the first option
rights on the Cabezas Medio area and drilled the exploration well Mata De
Indios #1.
- From 1986 to 1994, Llanos Oil continued to
explore the Cabezas Medio area.
- In 1994, the Colombia parliament passed Law # 97, largely as a result of
Llanos Oil's efforts. Law # 97 13 defined private land and mineral rights, a subject
of great controversy and litigation prior to enactment of the law. As a
result, Llanos Oil was able to commence full exploration of the Cesar Basin.
- In 1995, Llanos Oil acquired the
first option right for Las Maracas area for $500,000.00 USD.
- In 1996, Llanos Oil applied for the oil
exploration rights of Las Nieves at cost of $250,000.00 USD Las Nieves is
the block adjacent to Las Maracas.
- In 1997, Llanos Oil paid private land owners for
land lease rights for two locations referred to as "Fidelina"and
"Guacharaca" within the Las Nieves area.
28. Based on the results of its exploration, Llanos Oil concluded that the
Las Nieves region of Colombia contained vast, untapped oil reserves.
Llanos Oil Discovers Vast Oil Reserves
29. In 1997, Llanos Oil entered into an exploration oil lease with
Ecopetrol. A copy of the lease is attached as Exhibit 1. The lease covers
250,000 acres referred to as the Las Nieves region located within the Cesar
Basin. The lease was for a twenty-eight year term with periodic 14
development goals and requirements. Llanos Oil established $750,000 line of
credit to guarantee the work program for the first year. See Exhibit 2.
Llanos Oil immediately and aggressively expanded its exploration within the
region. All administrative and physical requirements of the lease were
timely met by Llanos Oil.
30. In 1998, Llanos Oil's seismic reports identified ten massive oil
structures within the Las Nieves region. A copy of the identified nine
massive oil structures is attached as Exhibit 3. Llanos Oil's studies
confirmed the potential of at least one billion barrels of light crude,
sweet, Brent, 39-42 API oil (identical to the neighboring proven billion
barrel oil reservoirs of La Paz and La Mara of Venezuela) ready for
immediate production. This was a breathtaking find that would have an
incredible impact on Colombia's future economic growth, and bring billions
of dollars of profits to the Llanos Oil investors. Llanos Oil began
preparations to drill the oil and transport it for sale in the USA.
31. Word of Llanos Oil' discovery leaked and become known to highly placed
individuals in Colombia's State oil company, Ecopetrol. The potential riches
expected to be generated by this discovery caused the worst aspects of greed
to surface. In an effort to eliminate Llanos Oil from their mineral
leasehold, the principals of Ecopetrol collaborated with other 15
members of an enterprise which has used, and continues to use, various
criminal artifices to oust Llanos Oil from its lease, including theft of
funds, false allegations of money laundering, threats of violence, and the
false imprisonment of Hendrik van Bilderbeek.
First Termination; Theft of $750,000
32. In 1999, Llanos Oil conducted over 235 km (376 miles) of reprocessed
seismic studies. However, during the summer of 1999, all work had to be
halted because of severe flooding in the area. The flooding has been
certified by the Colombian Meteorological Institute (IDEAM) a shown by the
documents attached as Exhibit 4.
33. In the year 2000, as a result of the flood, Llanos Oil requested that
Ecopetrol extend the time for completing certain exploratory work required
under its contract. Llanos Oil was entitled to such an extension under
Clause #34 of Ecopetrol's contract with Llanos Oil which provided for
automatic extensions in the cases of acts of nature, which specifically
included flooding. A copy of Clause 34 is attached as Exhibit 5.
34. In accordance with the contract, Ecopetrol agreed to the extension.
However, Ecopetrol conditioned the extension on the posting of an additional
$750,000 letter of credit, a condition not contemplated by the original
contract. Exhibit 6 is a true and accurate copy of a letter from 16
Ecopetrol purporting to establish the illegal condition.
35. In an effort to avoid a protracted dispute, Llanos Oil extended the
$750,000 letter of credit pursuant to Ecopetrol's demand, as shown by
Exhibit 7. Funds in the amount of $1.5 million backing the $750,000 letter
of credit were posted with Barclay's Bank in Miami, Florida. After the
letter of credit was issued, Ecopetrol unilaterally issued a letter of
termination falsely alleging that Llanos had not completed their work
program as prescribed. To add further insult to Llanos Oil's injury,
Defendants then immediately misappropriated $750,000 of the funds backing
the letter of credit. Ecopetrol's misappropriation of the $750,000 and its
unilateral termination of the Llanos Oil contract was without merit and was
part of Defendants' scheme to divert the mineral rights of Llanos Oil.
Llanos Oil continues its exploration in Colombia.
36. When Ecopetrol terminated Llanos Oil's lease in 2000, Llanos Oil refused
to accept this unilateral act and continued to conduct oil exploration in
the Las Nieves area. This is important because it rebuts Ecopetrol's
subsequently fabricated allegation that Llanos Oil was a sham entity that
conducted no exploration activities.
37. Llanos Oil completed the following development objectives 17
between 1999 and 2002, as shown in part by the documents attached as Exhibit
8:
- A study of the Las Nieves exploration area was conducted by
Petroconsultants of Switzerland, on behalf of Llanos Oil
- Diacomp of Houston, Texas, conducted a study to determine the
formation of petrol physical properties and the existence of formation
fracturing. Llanos Oil paid Diacomp $50,000 for their work
- In 2000, Dr. Roberto Prince, Geophysist, and Dr. Mario
Prince, Geologist, prepared an interpretation of the geological/geophysical
data available in the Seismic Reports of the drilling sites of Fidelina &
Gaucharaca
- Satellite scanning of the entire Las Nieves Block,
incorporating seismic, geological and thermal image interpretation was done
by two Landsat ETM satellites at a cost of $100,000
- Llanos Oil continued to build and enhance the physical
infrastructure of the potential drilling site of "Fidelina" and "Guacharaca"
by the building of roads, platforms, mud-pits
- Llanos Oil engineers reviewed over 1176 miles of 18
seismic reports by Philips Petroleum
- Almost 235 Km (376 Miles) of reprocessed seismic studies were
completed
- Western Atlas conducted new seismic studies covering 70 Km
(112 Miles)
- Two brand new drilling towers were purchased from Beiken
Industries
38. In addition, Llanos Oil completed the following development objectives
during 2003, as shown in part by the documents attached as Exhibit 9:
- Completion of Filelina's drill site (added were piping,
casing and boorhole) and partial completion Guacharaca at a cost in excess
of $500,000
- The reissuing of the Environmental and drilling permits at a
cost in excess of $50,000
- Survey lines were set out covering 55 Km (88 Miles) to
continue from the above mentioned 70km so that appropriate new seismic
evaluations could be made
The total cost expended for seismic studies since the beginning of the
Guatapuri Contract aka Las Nieves Contract has 19 been in excess of $1.5 million USD
- Llanos contracted for a new drilling tower from Parker
Drilling, Rig 117, for which Llanos Oil paid $100,000.00
- Llanos contracted with Halliburton to supervise its drilling
operations for which Llanos Oil paid $75,000
Llanos Oil Challenges Termination.
39. Llanos Oil aggressively challenged Ecopetrol's wrongful termination of
the contract and enlisted the aid of Colombian, Dutch and United States
officials to assist Llanos Oil in its efforts to enforce its rights.
Documents related to Llanos Oil's efforts in that regard are attached as
Exhibit 10.
40. Ultimately, as a result of the petitions by Llanos Oil's investors,
President Pastrana of Colombia directed that Ecopetrol return the Las Nieves
contract to Llanos Oil, as shown by Exhibit 11.
41. In January 2003, Ecopetrol finally agreed to reinstate the contract.
However, Ecopetrol changed the contract name from "Las Nieves" to
"Guatapuri" to make it appear that Ecopetrol was issuing a new lease to
Llanos Oil. In fact, the "Guatapuri area is identical to the Las Nieves area
which Llanos Oil had already leased and in which it had operated since 1997.
A copy of the second lease is attached as Exhibit 12. 20
42. As a condition to the "Guatapuri" lease being reinstated, Ecopetrol
demanded that Llanos Oil place an additional $2,500,000 in an escrow
account. This additional monetary deposit was not contemplated by President
Pastrana's instruction that the contract be reinstated. However, Uribe had
been elected President of Colombia in the meantime. Echeverri, the head of
Ecopetrol, is Uribe's chief of staff and was the integral component of the
mechanism by which Uribe was elected. Echeverri is as also an agent of
Drummond and it was Echeverri who had initiated the corrupt scheme to divert
the mineral rights leased to Llanos Oil. Uribe is an accomplice in that
scheme.
43. Despite the fact that Ecopetrol's principals had already stolen the
$750,000 deposited by Llanos Oil, Llanos Oil opened an escrow account with
Helm Bank in Miami, Florida. Subsequently, Helm Bank contacted Ecopetrol to
advise that Llanos Oil had complied with the $2,500,000 escrow account
requirement.
44. The Guatapuri "aka" Las Nieves contract became effective on February 6,
2003. Ecopetrol specifically confirmed that Llanos Oil had complied with all
terms and conditions of the contract, as shown by Exhibit 13. 21
Fabrication of charges.
45. On February 14, 2003, eight days after the "Guatapuri" contract became
effective, DAS, the Colombian secret service organization controlled by
Uribe and his Chief of Staff, Echeverri, issued a memorandum (Exhibit 14)
advising law enforcement authorities of a possible international drug
organization transporting drugs from the Cesar area (which includes
"Guatapuri"). This was the first openly overt step taken in furtherance of
the Defendants' plan to oust Llanos Oil from its mineral rights through the
fabrication of charges against Llanos Oil and its principals.
46. Shortly thereafter, DAS advised the Drug Enforcement Administration of
the U.S. Department of Justice that Llanos Oil was being utilized to launder
drug proceeds. This absolutely false allegation was designed to pressure
Llanos Oil (and its principals) to give up its mineral rights so that they
could be taken over by the Ecopetrol principals. In fact, Ecopetrol itself
was widely suspected of operating a drug organization protected by the
Colombian army in the Cesar area. Indeed, in an October 2003 memorandum
(Exhibit 15) the DEA stated that the Llanos Oil principals "are negative in
our indices," but Ecopetrol "is of record by DEA for various cocaine
smuggling related entries as well as for 22
its involvement in importing/supplying chemicals used for processing of
cocaine and money laundering."
47. DAS and the Ecopetrol principals continued to advise the DEA and other
law enforcement authorities that Llanos Oil was a sham entity that had never
done any exploration work or the work necessary for oil exploration in
Colombia, a shown by Exhibit 16. These allegations were false and Defendants
knew they were false. Despite their falsity, the allegations were repeatedly
reiterated by DAS and created mounting pressure on Llanos Oil and interfered
with Llanos Oil's relationships with banks and its investors.
48. On July 12, 2003, Ecopetrol suddenly demanded that Llanos Oil transfer
$2.5 million to the Bank of Bogotá no later than July 19, 2003. This would
be a difficult task for any entity on such short notice. While Llanos Oil
was reluctant to transfer the funds to a bank controlled by Ecopetrol given
the fact it had already stolen $750,000 that Llanos Oil had previously
deposited, Llanos Oil gave instructions for the funds to be transferred.
49. Notwithstanding the above, on July 23, 2003, Ecopetrol canceled the
Guatapuri contract. An Adjunct Vice President of Ecopetrol performed the
termination, as shown by Exhibit 17. Under Ecopetrol's 23
statutes clause 41, an Adjunct Vice President is not legally permitted under
any circumstance to terminate an oil exploration contract. The Defendants
used an Adjunct Vice President to carry out the termination in an effort to
conceal their orchestration of the termination. This unilateral act of
attempted termination was illegal, null, void, and of no legitimate effect.
50. In response to the July 2003 termination of its lease, Llanos Oil
appealed to Colombia's Ministry of Mining, an agency that supposedly has the
authority over Ecopetrol in the Colombian government.
51. On September 17, 2003, the Ministry of Mining directed Ecopetrol to
reinstate the oil mineral rights leased by Llanos, as shown by Exhibit 18.
Ecopetrol has ignored that directive.
The Drummond Companies
52. Defendants Drummond Company, Inc. and Drummond, Ltd. are Alabama
corporations that are engaged primarily in the mining and shipment of coal.
Among other places, Drummond Company, Inc. owns and operates a large coal
mine, rail line and port within the contracted oil lease area of Llanos Oil
in Colombia, South America. See Exhibit 19. The operations in Colombia are
financed and managed from the United States' headquarters of Drummond
Company, Inc, and the profits from the Colombia operations revert to
Drummond Company, Inc. 24
53. Drummond Company, Inc. and Drummond Ltd. utilize the services of the
Colombian military to protect their mining facilities, railway lines and
U.S. workers in Colombia. Drummond Company, Inc. and/or Drummond Ltd.
actually support a military base on company property by providing the land,
as well as electricity, fuel, and equipment. The Defendant companies also
maintain the local roads used by the military. Some of the local military
supported by the company cooperate with the paramilitaries that also operate
on the Drummond property and act on behalf of Drummond. Further, a
significant number of these military personnel also are members of the
paramilitaries operating in Valledupar, Colombia and elsewhere.
54. In addition, Drummond Company, Inc. and Drummond Ltd. permit known
paramilitaries of the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia ("AUC") to
freely enter their mining facilities in Colombia. These AUC paramilitaries
are permitted to operate openly in and around the Drummond facilities in
Colombia because they are in a cooperative and symbiotic relationship with
the regular military that are stationed on Drummond's property. Further,
some of the regular military soldiers based on Drummond's property also are
members of the AUC paramilitaries operating in and around the Drummond
facilities. The Drummond companies provide supplies, including fuel, as well
as monetary support to these paramilitaries. The Drummond companies pay the
paramilitaries 25 out of a slush fund account which is controlled in Colombia by La Loma
mines' President Augusto Jiminez.
55. The Drummond companies have been accused of systematically employing
paramilitaries to terrorize trade union leaders, murder persons it viewed as
interfering with its profits, and engage in other unlawful acts A copy of a
federal complaint describing some of the campaigns of murder and terror in
which Drummond has been accused of engaging is attached as Exhibit 20.
56. Drummond is closely aligned with Echeverri. See Exhibit 21. Echeverri is
an agent of Drummond and a member of the group that directs its activities
in Colombia. Drummond and Echeverri have a long-standing and ongoing
association.
57. In an effort to obtain their objectives, Echeverri, along with the other
Defendants herein, formulated a scheme to convert Llanos Oil's mineral
rights and transfer those rights to Drummond, which would then divert a
portion of the profits to the other Defendants.
Ecopetrol transfers Llanos Oil's mineral rights to Drummond.
58. Ecopetrol, which was controlled by Echeverri and other Defendants,
ignored the Ministry of Mining's order that Ecopetrol reinstate Llanos Oil's
lease. Instead, in December of 2003, Ecopetrol transferred the mineral
rights leased by Llanos Oil to Drummond. 26
59. There was no legitimate reason for Ecopetrol to transfer the mineral
rights to Drummond
60. Drummond is a coal mining company. It has never drilled oil or conducted
oil exploration activities. It does not have the equipment or technical
knowledge necessary to do so. Drummond does not meet the requirements
necessary for a company to receive an oil lease under the terms and
conditions established by Ecopetrol and the Ministry Mining. See, e.g.,
Exhibit 22 (setting forth, in part, Ecopetrol's standards for oil companies
to receive Ecopetrol contracts).
61. Drummond's application to take over the "Guatapuri" was approved in less
than nine days on the 23rd of December, 2003, as shown by Exhibit 23. The
process normally takes a year and a half. Ecopetrol have never approved an
application for any oil company in less than a year because of the
burdensome requirements that must be met.
62. The exploration work program set out by Ecopetrol for Drummond for the
first year called for the drilling of two stratographic wells which cost
around $5,000 per well versus the first year exploration work program set
out by Ecopetrol for Llanos Oil which called for one exploration well which
costs approximately $3.5 million. Furthermore, Drummond used proprietary
intellectual property data developed by 27
Llanos Oil to support its "application" to take over Llanos Oil's lease.
That data was misappropriated.
63. The Ecopetrol-Drummond Contract (Exhibit 23) is a farce. Every page of
the contract is notarized. When Llanos Oil originally obtained a copy of the
contract page 9 was missing. Thereafter, page 9 was inserted, setting out an
alleged work program for Drummond. Significantly, page 9 of carries a
different notary stamp then all other pages of the Contract, which is
indicative of the fact that it was inserted after the original phony
application was submitted.
64. Nine days after Drummond signed the Contract Ecopetrol's mandate to
issue oil leases ended. Thereafter, the newly created Agencia Nacional de
Hidrocarbones was in charge of issuing exploration contracts under terms and
conditions more favorable to oil companies. For example, under the contracts
issued by the Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarbones, oil companies are entitled
to 100 percent working interest of the exploration (meaning exploration
companies expend 100% of the costs for exploration and they receive 100% of
the proceeds) versus receiving 70 percent a working interest under the
contracts issued by Ecopetrol. At the time Drummond executed Exhibit 23, it
was well known that the more favorable contracts would be available in nine
days. It is inconceivable 28
that a major US Company such as Drummond would not wait nine days to accept
100% working interest versus 70% working interest unless, of course, there
was foul play involved.
65. Ecopetrol initially purported to terminate Llanos Oil's original lease
because it was allegedly not meeting work goals established under the
contract. However, when Drummond applied for the Guatapuri contract, it had
not conducted any technical analysis of the area and was not in any position
to commence exploratory or drilling operations.
66. Drummond has invested over $500 million into a coal mine operation, "La
Loma", located in the middle of Llanos Oil's Guatapuri "aka" Las Nieves
area. It is supporting paramilitary organizations, as well as the Colombia
army, from that location. By obtaining the Llanos Oil lease, Drummond could
maintain a monopoly on the area and keep its operations secret.
The imprisonment of Hendrik Van Bilderbeek
67. After Llanos Oil's contractual rights were converted by the Defendants,
Hendrik van Bilderbeek wrote letters and petitioned law enforcement
authorities, the Ministry of Mining, and others to assist Llanos Oil in
recovering its property rights. In response, the Defendants escalated their
campaign to prevent Llanos Oil from recovering its 29
property through the dissemination of false information and the fabrication
of false charges.
68. In January of 2004, Hendrik wrote the letter attached as Exhibit 24 to
Uribe advising him of the sequence of events that surrounded the
misappropriation of Llanos Oil's mineral rights.
69. In January of 2004, Hendrik wrote the letter attached as Exhibit 25 to
Ecopetrol appealing the termination of its contract and questioning
Drummond's application process.
70. In February 2004, Hendrik wrote the letter attached as Exhibit 26 to
Drummond advising that Llanos Oil did not agree with the termination and
questioned the validity of the transfer to Drummond.
71. In March of 2004, Hendrik sent President Uribe the information attached
as Exhibit 27 detailing Drummond's involvement with paramilitary forces and
its conversion of Llanos Oil's mineral rights.
72. In April of 2004, Hendrik requested that the Procuraduria (equivalent of
the US Attorney's Office) of Colombia investigate Drummond, Ecopetrol and
Echeverri. See Exhibit 28.
73. In May of 2004, DAS and Ecopetrol in conjunction with DEA caused a
search warrant to be served at the home of the assistant of Albert van
Bilderbeek of Llanos Oil in Austria; no evidence of any wrongdoing 30
was recovered and the case dismissed by the Austrian prosecuting
authorities. See Exhibit 29.
74. Throughout the spring of 2004 and continuing through the present, DAS,
acting at Defendants' behest, has intercepted various communications from
and between the principals of Llanos Oil in an effort to intimidate Llanos
Oil and interfere with its business.
75. In June of 2004, Llanos Oil filed a criminal complaint against Victor
Perez, former Vice President, Exploration & Production, Ecopetrol for
illegally cashing the $750,000 letter of credit. See Exhibit 30.
76. In August of 2004, Ecopetrol disseminated the false information attached
as Exhibit 31 charging that Llanos Oil was a sham company and that it had
not done any exploration work in Colombia.
77. In September 2004, DAS falsely advised Colombian prosecuting authorities
and the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, a shown by Exhibit
32, that Llanos Oil never had any contracts with Ecopetrol and was
laundering money for various groups, including paramilitary organizations of
the AUC, the same paramilitary group employed by Drummond being prosecuted
in Federal Court of Alabama for terrorism murder and torture of Colombian
union leaders. 31
78. On September 30, 2004, Hendrik and two other Llanos Oil employees were
arrested and imprisoned by Colombian authorities. Since that date, they have
remained imprisoned, without a trial, and have been subjected to
psychological and physical torture.
79. The Defendants orchestrated the arrest of Hendrik both to stop his vocal
opposition to Drummond's takeover of the Guatapuri contract and because they
knew that, without Hendrik, the operations of Llanos Oil could not continue.
The sole purpose of Hendrik's continued imprisonment is to assist the
Defendants in their scheme to misappropriate the mineral rights leased to
Llanos Oil.
Damages
80. Llanos Oil has sustained damages yet to be completely identified and
quantified and that are the direct and proximate result of the acts
perpetrated by the Defendants. Such damages are ongoing and include the loss
of Llanos Oil's investment of more than $10 million in the Guatapuri region;
lost sales and revenues and other significant direct, collateral, and
consequential damages arising from the loss of the mineral rights in the
Guatapuri aka Las Nieves region (conservatively valued at $50 billion USD);
and the impact on Llanos Oil's business operations and its ability to
effectively function and compete. 32
There is No Alternative, Adequate Forum
81. Plaintiffs do not have access to an independent or functioning legal
system within Colombia to raise their complaints. Any effort by Plaintiffs
to seek legal redress in Colombia would be futile because those seeking to
challenge official action or paramilitary violence, including prosecutors
and prominent human rights activists, are at great risk from retaliation.
This has been well-documented in credible human rights reports by the U.S.
Department of State, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. The U.S.
Department State, in its March 4, 2002 Country Report on Colombia, explained
that "[t]he civilian judiciary is inefficient, severely overburdened by a
large case backlog, and undermined by intimidation and the prevailing
climate of impunity. This situation remains at the core of the country's
human rights problems."
82. This assessment about the Colombian judicial system is corroborated in
detail by the February 28, 2002 Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights on the human rights situation in Colombia ("UNHCR Report"), which
relates that "the administration of justice continues to suffer from serious
weaknesses and deficiencies that help bolster the high rates of impunity for
major human rights violations and breaches of international humanitarian
law." The UNHCR concludes that "the main challenge in Colombia may be
defined as the future of the rule of law. The rule of law is in grave
jeopardy as result of the 33
continuing armed conflict, the escalation of violence, the lack of a proper
administration of justice and the burgeoning paramilitary states."
83. The UNHCR further states that "[s]everal events have called into
question the independence and autonomy of prosecutors in their investigation
into human rights violations, particularly those involving paramilitary
groups and public officials." The UNHCR advises that there is a "disquieting
reluctance on the part of the State to implement the right to independent,
impartial and rights-based justice."
84. The UNHCR relates that these deficiencies in the judicial system are
only exacerbated by Colombia's recent passage of the Security and National
Defense Law which has resulted in "the subordination of the civilian
authority to the military, the undermining of the rule of law and the
violation of human rights." On June 24, 2002, UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Mary Robinson, expressed her "deep concern over an escalation in
harassment and violence against human rights defenders in Colombia," mostly
by the paramilitaries. Mary Robinson further explained that this harassment
and violence is being spurred on by "public servants, and especially members
of the security forces ...." (Id.).
85. The complaint in this case expressly implicates President Uribe, a man
who controls the military and, as a result, the judiciary. The complaint 34
expressly implicates Echeverri, Uribe's Chief of Staff, and a man widely
viewed as the puppet master for Uribe and the real power at the Colombian
Palace.
86. The complaint expressly implicates DAS, the secret police force employed
by the Colombian Palace, and its connection to the DEA. The complaint
expressly implicates Ecopetrol and the Colombian officials who have used
that agency for their own personal gain. Ecopetrol is controlled by the
Defendants and is a sham.
87. This expressly implicates the Drummond companies and the paramilitary
forces that the Drummond companies and Colombian officials have employed to
carry out their dirty work. The complaint also directly implicates Colombian
law enforcement authorities who have permitted and participated in human
rights violations, including the wrongful imprisonment of Hendrik van
Bilderbeek.
88. In view of the foregoing facts, Llanos Oil could not possibly receive a
fair hearing in Colombia and there is no alternative forum in which the
complaints expressed herein could be heard. 35
COUNT I
RICO violation of § 1962(c) (against All Defendants)
89. Llanos Oil incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 88 as if those allegations were fully repeated herein.
90. This is an action against all the Defendants for violating 18 U.S.C. §
1962(c).
91. Beginning on some unknown date prior to the year 2000, the Defendants
formed an association-in-fact enterprise that was engaged in, or the
activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce and which is
referred to hereinafter as the Ecopetrol/Drummond Enterprise.
92. The Defendants joined together as a union or group of individuals,
associated in fact although not a legal entity, for the following common
purposes: financing paramilitary forces that could be used to protect the
Defendants, quell political dissent, quash labor unions, maintain over
various governmental agencies, divert Colombian mineral rights to the
Drummond Companies, launder monies, and divert monies to the various
individual members of the enterprise.
93. The Defendants and others known and unknown to Llanos Oil, all of whom
were associated with this enterprise, participated in the 36
management of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity,
including the use and threatened use of violence, murder, theft, and general
abuses of power, some of which were exerted under the color of Colombian
law, and all of which occurred before 1999 and continue through the present
and involve many victims other than Llanos Oil.
94. This association-in-fact enterprise has evolved as an ongoing
organization with its various associates functioning at any time as a
continuing unit and whose associates have shifted and overlapped. This
association-in-fact enterprise has a life beyond the pattern of racketeering
activity alleged in this complaint and continues up to the date of filing
with a plan to continue at least as long as Uribe and Echeverri maintain
power in Colombia (Uribe, Echeverri's present puppet, is in office through
2005 and plans to run for another four year term; in fact, Echeverri was
instrumental in effecting a change to the Colombian Constitution that
enables Uribe to run for another term).
The Pattern of Racketeering Activity
95. Beginning no later than 1999 and continuing through the present, the
Defendants and others known and unknown to Llanos Oil who were associated
with the enterprise described above did willfully and knowingly conduct and
participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of 37
the enterprise's activities through a pattern of racketeering activity,
which included the transportation of stolen property in foreign commerce (18
U.S.C. § 2315); multiple acts of mail and/or wire fraud connected to the
theft of $750,000 from a Llanos Oil escrow account (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341,
1343); the making of false statements to the Drug Enforcement Administration
(18 U.S.C. 1001); and the following acts that are subject to more than one
year imprisonment: the theft of $750,000 from a Llanos Oil escrow account;
the theft of technical and proprietary data that belonged to Llanos Oil; and
the theft and/or misappropriation by fraud and deception of Llanos Oil's
leasehold interest to the Las Nieves mineral rights.
96. The pattern of the racketeering activity and offenses was continuous in
nature, poses a threat of continues activity, and had the same or similar
purposes. These acts were not isolated events but were interrelated,
repeated, and at all times threatened repetition and future criminal
activity.
97. It was a corrupt object of the pattern of racketeering activity that the
Defendant and others, known and unknown to Llanos Oil, would misappropriate
Llanos Oil's mineral rights so that the Ecopetrol/Drummond enterprise could
preserve and enhance its power and the members of the enterprise profit from
their activities. 38
98. It was further a corrupt object of the pattern of racketeering activity
that Uribe would, through the use of murder, threats, and general
intimidation employed by paramilitary forces financed by the enterprise, be
reelected President of Colombia.
99. It was further a corrupt object of the pattern of racketeering activity
that the Ecopetrol/Drummond enterprise would obstruct justice and conceal
the illegal conduct of its members through the dissemination of false
charges and information through DAS and other agencies that the enterprise
utilized for those purposes.
100. Beginning no later than 1999 and continuing through the present, the
Defendants and others known and unknown to Llanos Oil who were associated
with the Ecopetrol/Drummond enterprise described above did willfully and
knowingly conduct and participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of
the enterprise's activities through a pattern of racketeering activity, as
set forth above. Each of the racketeering acts described in paragraph 95
constitutes a predicate act of racketeering activity as defined in 18 U.S.C.
§ 1961(1)(B).
101. The pattern of these acts was continuous in nature, posed a threat of
continuous activity, and had the same or similar purpose. These 39
acts were not isolated events but were interrelated, repeated, and at all
times threatened repetition and future criminal activity.
102. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1962(c), Llanos Oil has suffered damages and is therefore entitled
to recover from the Defendants treble damages and the cost of this lawsuit,
including a reasonable attorney's fee, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
WHEREFORE, Llanos Oil demands judgment against all of the Defendants,
jointly and severally, and in its favor for:
- A. Compensatory and other damages contemplated by and
available through 18 U.S.C. § I961(c) for the damages that it actually
sustained;
- B. Threefold the actual damages sustained;
- C. The costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees: and
- D. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT II
RICO violation of § 1962(a) (against All Defendants)
103. Llanos Oil incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 98 and 91 through 99 as if those allegations were fully
repeated herein.
104. This is an action against all the Defendants for violating 18 U.S.C. §
1962(a).
105. From in or about 1999 and through the present, the Defendants received
income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering
activity, as set forth above, and used and invested, directly and
indirectly, such income, and the proceeds of such income, in the acquisition
of an interest in, or the establishment or operation of, an enterprise, to
wit, the Ecopetrol/Drummond Enterprise, which is engaged in, or the
activities of which affect, interstate and foreign commerce.
106. Defendants' investment of the income they obtained as a result of their
racketeering activity caused damage and injury to Llanos Oil's business and
property.
107. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' perpetuation of the
enterprise, Llanos Oil suffered injury to its business and property and is
entitled to recover from the Defendants treble damages 41
and the cost of this lawsuit, including a reasonable attorney's fee,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
WHEREFORE, Llanos Oil demands judgment against all of the Defendants,
jointly and severally, and in its favor for:
- A. Compensatory and other damages contemplated by and
available through 18 U.S.C. § I961(c) for the damages that it actually
sustained;
- B. Threefold the actual damages sustained;
- C. The costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees: and
- D. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT III
RICO violation of § 1962(d) (against All Defendants)
108. Llanos Oil incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 88 and 91 through 99 as if those allegations were fully
repeated herein.
109. This is an action against all the Defendants for violating 18 U.S.C. §
1962(d).
110. From in or about 1999 to the present, the Defendants, together with
others known and unknown to Llanos Oil, unlawfully, willfully and knowingly
conspired, combined and agreed to conduct or participate, directly or
indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise pleaded 42
above through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1962(c). This conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) constitutes a
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).
111. In furtherance of this conspiracy the Defendants and others, known and
unknown to Llanos Oil, committed numerous overt acts as alleged above in the
pattern of racketeering described in paragraphs 95 through 99.
112. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' agreement to
violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), Llanos Oil
suffered injury to its business and property and is entitled to recover from
the Defendants treble damages and the cost of this lawsuit, including a
reasonable attorney's fee, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
WHEREFORE, Llanos Oil demands judgment against all of the Defendants,
jointly and severally, and in its favor for:
- A. Compensatory and other damages contemplated by and
available through 18 U.S.C. § I961(c) for the damages that it actually
sustained;
- B. Threefold the actual damages sustained;
- C. The costs of suit and reasonable attorneys fees: and
- D. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT IV
Fraud (against All Defendants except Drummond)
113. Llanos Oil incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 88 as if those allegations were fully repeated herein.
114. This is an action against all the Defendants, except Drummond Company,
Inc. and Drummond, Ltd., for their joint, collective, and individual
fraudulent misrepresentations.
115. The Defendants intentionally made, or caused to be made, material
misrepresentations and false statements, including the following false
statements:
- (a) The Defendants intentionally misrepresented in the year 2000
that if Llanos Oil would post $750,000 its contract rights would be
reinstated and remain in effect.
- (b) Defendants intentionally misrepresented in the year 2003
that if Llanos Oil would produce certification that it had $2.5 million in
an escrow account then its contract would be reinstated and remain in
effect.
116. The above statements were false and Defendants knew they were false
when they made the statements. 44
117. Defendants intended for Llanos Oil to rely on the false statements.
118. Llanos Oil relied on the false statements and its reliance was
reasonable.
119. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' wrongful actions,
Llanos Oil has sustained actual damages and will continue to sustain such
damages in the future.
WHEREFORE, Llanos Oil demands judgment against all of the Defendants named
in this Count, jointly and severally, and in its favor for:
- A. Compensatory and other damages contemplated by and available
under applicable law;
- B. Punitive Damages; and
- C. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT V
Conversion (against All Defendants)
120. Llanos Oil incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 88 as if those allegations were fully repeated herein.
121. This is an action against the Defendants for their joint, collective,
and independent actions to convert Llanos Oil property. 45
122. The Defendants knowingly and intentionally stole, converted, and/or
otherwise misappropriated for their own benefit and/or the benefit of
others, without the authority to do so, money and other property that
belonged to Llanos Oil.
WHEREFORE, Llanos Oil demands judgment against all of the Defendants,
jointly and severally, and in its favor for:
- A. Compensatory and other damages contemplated by and available
under applicable law;
- B. Punitive Damages; and
- C. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT VI
Intentional Inference with Business (against All Defendants)
123. Llanos Oil incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 88 as if those allegations were fully repeated herein.
124. This is an action against the Defendants for their joint, collective,
and individual actions to intentionally and/or tortiously interfere with the
business of Llanos Oil.
125. At all material times, Llanos Oil had ongoing and prospective business
opportunities arising from its contract for the mineral rights in the Las
Nieves area of Colombia. 46
126. The Defendants possessed actual knowledge of Llanos Oil's business
opportunities.
127. The Defendants acted deliberately and/or negligently to interfere with
Llanos Oil's business opportunities, as more fully set forth above.
128. The Defendants knew or should have known that the acts complained of
were likely to result in the disruption of Llano Oil's business
opportunities.
129. The Defendants' misconduct, as more fully set forth above, did, in
fact, disrupt Llanos Oil's business opportunities.
WHEREFORE, Llanos Oil demands judgment against all of the Defendants,
jointly and severally, and in its favor for:
- A. Compensatory and other damages contemplated by and available
under applicable law;
- B. Punitive Damages; and
- C. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT VII
Intentional Inference with Contract (against All Defendants)
130. Llanos Oil incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 88 as if those allegations were fully repeated herein.
47
131. This is an action against the Defendants for their joint, collective,
and individual actions to intentionally and/or tortiously interfere with the
contract between Llanos Oil and Ecopetrol.
132. Llanos Oil had an ongoing contract with Ecopetrol and Defendants knew
of that contact.
133. The Defendants acted deliberately and/or negligently interfered with
Llanos Oil's contract with Ecopetrol.
134. Defendants intentionally and maliciously took action to terminate that
contract and violate Llanos Oil's contractual rights.
135. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' wrongful actions,
Llanos Oil has sustained actual damages and will continue to sustain such
damages in the future.
WHEREFORE, Llanos Oil demands judgment against all of the Defendants,
jointly and severally, and in its favor for:
- A. Compensatory and other damages contemplated by and available
under applicable law;
- B. Punitive Damages; and
- C. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT VIII
Civil Conspiracy (against All Defendants) 48
136. Llanos Oil incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 88 as if those allegations were fully repeated herein.
137. This is an action against the Defendants for civil conspiracy.
138. Beginning no later than the year 2000 and continuing through the
present, Defendants combined, conspired, confederated and agreed to enter
into a scheme to defraud Llanos Oil and deprive it of property rights which
it owned or in which it otherwise had an interest.
139. Several overt acts were carried out in furtherance of the conspiracy,
including the theft of funds, the making of false statements to law
enforcement authorities, the false imprisonment of Hendrik van Bilderbeek,
and the transfer of Llanos Oil's leasehold interest to the Drummond
companies.
140. Defendants performed the acts alleged herein in furtherance of the
common plan or design for the conspiracy with knowledge of the injury and
damage it would cause to Llanos Oil and with the intent to cause such
injuries or with reckless disregard for the consequences.
141. As a direct and proximate result of the conspiracy as alleged herein,
Llanos Oil has been injured and damaged, and Defendants are jointly and
severally liable for such injuries and damages. 49
WHEREFORE, Llanos Oil demands judgment against all of the Defendants,
jointly and severally, and in its favor for:
- A. Compensatory and other damages contemplated by and available
under applicable law;
- B. Punitive Damages; and
- C. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
COUNT IX
Unjust Enrichment (Against Drummond)
142. Llanos Oil incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 88 as if those allegations were fully repeated herein.
143. This is an action against the Drummond companies for unjust enrichment
for the benefits they received.
144. Defendants unlawfully, fraudulently, and intentionally solicited and
obtained money and other property rights that belonged to Llanos Oil and
thereby received a benefit at the expense of Llanos Oil.
145. Llanos Oil conducted Seismic studies, data analyses, and other
exploratory work that identified vast Oil reserves within the Guatapuri
region of Colombia.
146. As a result of that work and Drummond's receipt of the Guatapuri
contract, Llanos Oil conferred a benefit on Defendants. 50
147. Defendants would be unjustly enriched if they were allowed to retain
the benefits derived from Llanos Oil and they should be required to
compensate Llanos Oil for those benefits.
WHEREFORE, Llanos Oil demands judgment against Drummond Company, Inc. and
Drummond, Ltd., jointly and severally, and in its favor for:
- A. Compensatory and other damages contemplated by and available
under applicable law; and
- B. Such other relief as the Court deems just.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff, Llanos Oil, demands trial by jury as to all issues so triable.
HARRISON T. SLAUGHTER, JR.
Leventhal & Slaughter, P.A.
Florida Bar No. 194822
