Item 1. Legal Proceedings
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
NSC and AdR
Immediately following CW-Cooperatief’s acquisition of its initial 50% ownership in NSC, the remaining 50% ownership interest in NSC was held by an unrelated company, Norte Sur Agua, S. de R.L. de C.V. (“NSA”). NSA subsequently transferred ownership of half of its shares in NSC to EWG Water LLC (“EWG”) and the other half of its shares in NSC to an individual (the “individual shareholder”). In February 2012, CW-Cooperatief paid $300,000 to enter into an agreement (the “Option Agreement”) that provided it with an option, exercisable through February 7, 2014, to purchase the shares of NSC owned by the individual shareholder for a price of $1.0 million along with an immediate usufruct and power of attorney to vote those shares. Such shares constituted 25% of the ownership of NSC as of February 2012. In May 2013, NSC repaid a $5.7 million loan payable to CW-Cooperatief by issuing additional shares of its stock. As a result of this share issuance to CW-Cooperatief, we indirectly acquired 99.99% of the ownership of NSC. The Option Agreement contained an anti-dilution provision that required CW-Cooperatief to transfer or otherwise cause the individual shareholder to acquire, for a total price of $1 (regardless of their par or market value), shares in NSC of an amount sufficient to maintain the individual shareholder’s 25% ownership interest in NSC if (i) any new shares of NSC were issued subsequent to the execution of the Option Agreement (causing the individual shareholder’s 25% ownership interest in NSC to be decreased); and (ii) CW-Cooperatief did not exercise its share purchase option by February 7, 2014. CW-Cooperatief exercised its option and paid the $1.0 million to the individual shareholder to purchase the Option Agreement shares in February 2014.
In January 2018, EWG initiated an ordinary mercantile claim against the individual shareholder, NSC and CW-Cooperatief, (with AdR being named as a third party to be called to trial) before the Tenth Civil Judge in Tijuana, Baja California for Mercantile Matters (the “Tenth Civil Judge”). In the ordinary mercantile claim, EWG challenged, among other things, the transactions contemplated under the Option Agreement, and therefore, the capital investment transactions that increased the ownership interest of CW-Cooperatief in NSC to 99.99% as a consequence of the Option Agreement. EWG requested that the courts, as a preliminary matter (a) suspend the effectiveness of the challenged transactions; (b) order certain public officials in Mexico to record the pendency of the lawsuit in the public records (including a special request to register a lien over the real estate owned by NSC); (c) appoint an inspector for NSC to oversee its commercial activities; and (d) order public officials in Mexico and credit institutions abroad to refrain from authorizing or executing any legal act related with the activities of the plaintiff, the co-defendants and the third party called to trial to avoid damages to third parties, including those with whom negotiations or any form of commercial or administrative activities, or activities of any other nature related with the “Rosarito” water desalination project, are being conducted. The Tenth Civil Judge granted, ex-parte, the preliminary relief sought by EWG, which resulted in the issuance of official writs to several governmental and public entities involved with the “Rosarito” water desalination project, including the registration of the pendency of the lawsuit in certain public records.
On October 16, 2018, NSC was served with the ordinary mercantile claim. On November 7, 2018, NSC filed a legal response to the claim, vigorously opposing the claims made by EWG. In addition to such legal response, NSC filed (i) a request to submit the claim to arbitration, based on certain provisions of the by-laws of NSC, (ii) an appeal remedy against the preliminary relief, and (iii) a request for the setting of a guarantee to release the preliminary relief granted in favor of EWG.
On October 1, 2020, and following an order from a Federal Judge obtained by NSC, the Tenth Civil Judge resolved to (i) move the claim of EWG to arbitration, and (ii) suspend the corresponding ordinary mercantile procedure. EWG challenged such resolution, arguing that its notification was not lawful. The Tenth Civil Judge dismissed such challenge, and thereafter EWG filed a remedy against such dismissal, which remedy has not been resolved (notwithstanding that NSC appeared to vigorously oppose such remedy).
Notwithstanding the resolution of the Tenth Civil Judge to move to arbitration, subparagraphs a) and b) that follow describe certain separate amparo claims, an appeal and an administrative act arising from or relating to such ordinary mercantile claim, all in chronological order. Due to the current global COVID-19 pandemic, most tribunals in Mexico have suspended their activities intermittently since March 2020, with certain such tribunals restarting activities in August 2020. As such, several resolutions are pending issuance.
36
Table of Contents
a) Appeal filed by NSC against the preliminary relief sought by EWG.
The appeal remedy filed by NSC on November 7, 2018, mentioned previously, suspended the proceeding (through the posting of a guarantee by NSC) and was resolved in December 2019 and communicated to EWG in January 2020. Such resolution revoked the order of the Tenth Civil Judge whereby EWG was granted the preliminary relief.
b) Amparo filed by EWG against the revocation of the preliminary relief.
In January 2020, EWG filed a new amparo claim against the resolution of the appeal remedy previously mentioned in subparagraph a). NSC has responded to this new amparo to vigorously oppose such amparo claim of EWG and to uphold the resolution of such appeal remedy. To this date, the resolution to this amparo claim has not been issued (notwithstanding that a final hearing within such procedure was held) and, as such, it does not affect the revocation of the preliminary relief.
Notwithstanding the resolution to move to arbitration mentioned previously, CW-Cooperatief has not been officially served with the ordinary mercantile claim, and AdR has not been notified that it has to appear for such trial. In any event, AdR is only a named third party called to trial in this claim, and no claims have been made by EWG against AdR.
We cannot presently determine what impact the resolution of this litigation may ultimately have on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows .
Text extracted from the filing as submitted to EDGAR. Formatting, tables and exhibits are simplified for reading; the original document is authoritative for anything you rely on.