[Community-Discuss] South Africa ISPA Statement on Recent AFRINIC developments

[Owen DeLong]

> On Aug 3, 2021, at 02:53 , Ronald F. Guilmette <rfg at tristatelogic.com> wrote:

> 

> In message <CAF4kYpvTgXGo4u2SSJHBUNsOQ6WEz4JMtxx=6YbhV2E57t+siQ at mail.gmail.com>

> Paul Hjul <hjul.paul at gmail.com> wrote:

> 

>>> You and I both know that no such judicial order would ever have been

>>> issued by any U.S. court,

>> 

>> 

>> take it you have not read  *United States ex rel. Rahman v. Oncology

>> Assocs.*, 198 F.3d 489 (4th Cir. 1999)

> 

> C'mon Paul.  Get serious.  The facts of that case were TOTALLY different

> and in that case the court considered and reasonably found that Defendant 

> was actively engaged in trying to hide assets:

> 

>    https://casetext.com/case/us-ex-rel-rahman-v-oncology-associates-2

> 

>      "The district court entered a pre-judgment, asset-freezing injunction

>      on the United States' allegations that the defendant oncology service

>      providers defrauded the Medicare and CHAMPUS programs and thereafter

>      were engaging in complex reorganizations and transfers of assets to

>      insulate themselves from liability."

> 

> Show me where AFRINIC took *any* action to in any way remove any of its

> bank assets or to place any of them in any place outside of the jurisdiction

> of, or beyond the control of the court.


AFRINIC has relatively limited income. They have a burn rate that is not far
from their income. Their day to day expenses, especially in light of their
propensity for board travel, etc. could easily be used to dissipate a substantial
fraction of their current holdings which fall well short of what the courts
consider to be a likely judgment in the case.


> You can't, because it didn't happen.


Can’t he? Didn’t it? The very nature of AFRINIC dissipating its assets into its
creditors and suppliers coffers would (given AFRINIC’s current expenses)
both place some fraction of those bank assets outside of the jurisdiction (as
AFRINIC has a number of suppliers and contracts outside of Mauritius) and
beyond the control of the court (as once salaries are payed to employees,
contractors, or other vendors, it is unlikely that the courts have the power to
claw that money back to satisfy a judgment).


>> The only reason the restraint "threatens" the

>> existence of the organization is because the organizations finances have

>> not been arranged in a proper way.

> 

> That is also bullshit.


Not entirely so, no.


>> I am also increasingly suspecting that a language or numbering conversion

>> error  and that the amount of 1.8 billion dollars is an urban legend.

> 

> Suspect whatever you like.  Some people are possessed of the facts, even

> if you have failed to adequately acquaint yourself with them.


The true value expressed in the law suit is $1.8 billion USD. I don’t know what
will happen in this case, but a few facts are obvious:

	1.	Even in the case of an entirely favorable judgment against AFRINIC,
		AFRINIC does not have $1.8 billion USD or the means to acquire
		anywhere near $1.8 billion USD.

	2.	Lawsuits often start out with shoot-the-moon numbers and end up
		with judgments or settlements significantly different than any
		initial numbers proposed by either side.

	3.	Whether Ronald agrees with the decision or not, the MU courts
		found sufficient merits in the petition by CI to issue an order
		restraining AFRINIC’s bank accounts up to a guarantee amount
		that is well short of the claimed $1.8 billion USD, but well north
		of AFRINIC’s current balances.

There is a common expression about litigation and mediation that states
that a fair conclusion is reached when all sides are equally unhappy with
the result.

Owen