Foreign Lenders Sue FBN Trustees, Sulu Gambari Overalleged Illegal Creation Of Security In Neconde -Nestoil Case

Foreign Lenders Sue FBN Trustees, Sulu Gambari Overalleged Illegal Creation Of Security In Neconde -Nestoil Case

A  consortium of Foreign financial institutions, Glencore Energy UK Limited, Africa Finance Corporation, Mauritius Commercial Bank, has sued First Bank Nigeria Trustees Limited. The action is filed against both FBN Trustees and their appointed receiver, Abubakar Sulu-Gambari SAN, over what the Foreign Lenders allege is an unlawful attempt to seize control of Neconde Energy Limited’s interests in  Oil Mining Lease 42 (OML 42).

The Foreign Lenders extended credit facilities to Neconde, with FBN Trustees appointed as security trustee under the agreed terms.

The International Financiers whose court processes accuse FBN Trustee of an alleged Illegal Grab of Asset and breach of Trust hauled FBN Trustees Limited and its receiver Abubakar Sulu Gambari SAN before the courts, accusing them of a deliberate attempt to unlawfully seize Neconde Energy Limited’s stake in Oil Mining Lease 42 (OML 42).

The Foreign lenders allege that FBN Trustees abandoned its role as a neutral trustee, ignored binding loan terms, and allegedly acted to  benefit the consortium of Nigerian banks that have no debt claim against Neconde Energy.

According to court filings, FBN Trustees was appointed to protect the interests of the Senior Foreign Lenders—international financial institutions and an oil trading company. They allege,  that instead, FBN trustee crossed the line, secretly creating a second, illegal security over Neconde ‘s OML 42 interest without the required consent.

That consent, the foreign lenders state, was clearly refused.

Despite this, FBN Trustees allegedly went ahead and executed a deed of charge, a move the foreign lenders describe as unauthorised, unlawful, and a clear breach of trust.

The lawsuit stresses that Neconde Energy owes nothing to the Nigerian banks who are now claiming rights over OML 42. The foreign lenders say that this makes the security baseless from the start, and any enforcement action flowing from it legally void.

They also challenge the appointment of a receiver, arguing it rests on an invalid and manufactured claim.

Tags: No tags

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *