Pull out that GERS worry list

The SkunK has a GERS worry list. It has two things on it. Decent financing and COES production. Mrs SkunK thinks having two things on my mind is an improvement, she has spent years telling me I only have one. But I digress. If your GERS worry list is more complicated than mine, pull it out. Thanks to Lightbean on i-hub finding this nugget, you may get to put a line through something.

For background, on 2Q, page 22 we find this:

"The Company’s subsidiaries, GS AgriFuels Corporation and NextGen Fuel, Inc. are party to the matter entitled O’Brien & Gere Limited, et al v. NextGen Chemical Processors, Inc., et al., which action was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The verified complaint had sought performance of and damages relating to certain service and related agreements, plus attorney’s fees and costs. This matter relates to the provision by plaintiffs of certain engineering services to NextGen Chemical Processors, Inc. ("NCP") during 2005 and 2006. NCP is owned by the former shareholders of NextGen Fuel, Inc., subsidiary. On September 19, 2007, the Supreme Court of the State of New York dismissed a significant portion of O’Brien & Gere’s complaint with prejudice. Management does not believe that there is a reasonable possibility that the claims made against NextGen Fuel by the plaintiffs in this litigation indicate that a material loss has occurred. Accordingly, no accrual has been made in connection with those claims. "

The SkunK put the above paragraph through his mumbo-jumbo legal translator and came up with this:

O'Brien and Gere provided engineer work to NextGen Chemical Processors. They think they were not paid the full amount due. We bought NextGen and changed the name to NextGen Fuels and inherited the dispute. A year ago September a bunch of the complaint was thrown out because it was bogus. We have not been putting money aside to pay this, since we think we think we will win.

This is the update Lightbeam found:

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=33534816

What the SkunK thinks this 3 October ruling is about is that the appeals court is
". . .dismissing the complaint in its entirety. . . " This was based on O'Brien and Gere's failure to take the dispute first to the "alternative dispute resolution (ADR) procedure" [mediator] before they took it to court. So I suppose that now they could possibly start the procedure over, take it to the ADR and then back through the court system. This is because the Appellate Courts did not rule on the merit of the case, only the huge procedural flaw. But I suspect, unless they have a brother-in-law for a lawyer (sounds too iffy for an unrelated lawyer to take on commisssion), they might just cut their losses and drop the case. This will be an interesting update in the 3Q.

SkunK