Replies

CORDEX PETROLEUMS: No Agreement With Bankers Trust

According to the Canada Newswire on March 3, 1999,
Cordex Petroleums Inc. (TSE-CZX.A) has not been
able to reach a mutually acceptable arrangement with
Bankers Trust of New York with regard to the disbursement
of approximately US $13,600,000 in net proceeds from the
sale of the company's oil and gas assets in Chile and
Argentina to Genera SA., which closed on December 7, 1998.
An additional US $1,100,000 was withheld by the purchaser
at the time of the closing. The company has requested a
written accounting from Bankers Trust of New York with
regard to its claims which relate to various cash advances
of approximately US $11,000,000, not including interest,
dividends, "lump sum" or profit claims.

The claims of Bankers Trust of New York include advances by
a third party. In addition, Cordex Petroleums Inc. has
identified approximately US $2,600,000 in claims by
creditors. In the absence of an acceptable arrangement,
Cordex Petroleums Inc. applied on March 05, 1999 for court
protection and related legal remedies under Part III of
the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada) and Chapter 11
of the United States Bankruptcy Code to protect its
creditors and preserve value for its shareholders. Cordex
Petroleums Inc. intends to continue negotiations to
resolve all outstanding issues.

On May 24, 2002, the Company was notified of a suit filed by Bankers Trust
International Corporation (Delaware) Inc., as assignee of the trustee in
the bankruptcy of Cordex Petroleums Inc., a company organized under the
laws of Canada. Bankers Trust International Corporation (Delaware) Inc.
sued us for an amount equal to US$8.7 million plus interest and legal
fees, on the grounds of alleged collusion between us and the other
defendant, Mr. Ralph Wilkerson, breach contracts, incitement to breach
contracts, and fraud and incitement to infringe the fiduciary duties
towards Cordex Petroleums Inc. The suit corresponds to case N0101-05135 of
the Superior Court of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary, Canada. On
July 19, 2002 we submitted a motion to dismiss the suit based on lack of
jurisdiction of the Canadian courts of law. A hearing was set for February
6, 2003 but was later suspended due to the plaintiff's delay in the
presentation of an affidavit supporting its claim. In March 2003, the
judge decided to accept the plaintiff's affidavit solely for the purpose
of amending the plaintiff's claim, and on April 14, 2003, the plaintiff
appealed this decision. A hearing date has not been scheduled. Although no
assurance can be given, we do not expect the outcome of this litigation to
have a materially adverse effect on our financial condition or results of
operations.