"2. By 4pm on 11 April 2018 the defendant shall provide to the claimant the following information (the "Disclosure Affidavit"), verified on affidavit by a duly authorized officer, namely:
(a) An explanation of whether the Defendant has received payment of US$193 million in dividends and interest from its shareholding in Unitel S.A. (or any other sums) since the date the worldwide freezing order granted by his court on 12 October 2015 (the "Worldwide Freezing Order");
(b) Confirmation that any such funds remain with the Defendant and have not been further disbursed (exclusive of payments made under the exceptions at paragraph 9 of the Worldwide Freezing Order);
(c) If such funds are no longer with the Defendant, confirmation that the Defendant's net asset position exceeds the minimum of US$2,449 billion protected by the Worldwide Freezing Order.
(d) If such funds are no longer with the Defendant, confirmation of the identity of the third party/parties who received the funds; and
(e) Details of the assets relied upon by the Defendant since the date of the Worldwide Freezing Order to satisfy the minimum asset position (including periodic bank statements since that date)."
 Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the WFO dated 12 October 2015 reads as follows:
4. "...the Respondent must not-
(2) in any way dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any of its assets whether they are in or outside the British virgin Islands up to the same value [US$2,449 billion] (square brackets added)
5. Paragraph 4 applies to all assets whether or not they are in its [Vidatel's] own name, whether they are solely or jointly owned and whether [Vidatel] is interested in them legally, beneficially or otherwise. For the purposes of this order assets include any asset which it has the power, directly or indirectly, to dispose of or deal with as if it was its own. [Vidatel] is to be regarded as having such power if a third party holds or controls the asset in accordance with its direct or indirect instructions.
6. The prohibition includes the following assets in particular-
(1) the Respondent's 25% shareholding in Unitel S.A.; and
(2) dividends paid to the respondent in respect of its shareholding in Unitel S.A.
"EXCEPTIONS TO THE ORDER
(9) (1) the order does not prohibit the Respondent from spending a reasonable sum on legal advice and representation. But before spending any money on legal advice or representation the Respondent must tell the applicant's legal representatives where the money is to come from, if it is not the Respondent's own money.
(2) The respondent may agree with the Applicant's legal representatives that it may spend more than a reasonable sum on legal advice and representation or that this Order should be varied in any other respect, but any agreement must be in writing.
(3) the Order will cease to have effect if:
(a) the Respondent-
(i) provides security by paying the sum of US$2,449 billion into court, to be held to the order of the court; or
(ii) makes provision for security in that sum by another method agreed with the Applicant's legal representatives.
(4) the Order does not prohibit the respondent paying such fees that are necessary to maintain its corporate status and existence including, for example, company fees required under Angolan law."
(i) PTV is in breach of its express undertaking to the court in using information and documents provided by Vidatel under the 28 March 2018 Order to found and to use it in its application for a declaration that Vidatel has breached the WFO. They argue the undertaking was not to use the information in "contempt proceedings", and that in context that includes proceedings for a declaration of breach of the WFO, and as such the application is for an improper purpose.
(ii) The declaration sought would serve no useful permissible purpose.
(iii) It is disproportionate, unnecessary, inappropriate and the waste of the parties and the court's time to consider whether a declaration should be granted that there was an historical breach on the relevant facts and the law. If necessary the position should be dealt with by an amendment going forward or by an undertaking from Vidatel. If not its submitted that PTV did not prove a breach, which it stated should be as in a case for contempt of court, on a criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt.
(iv) Vidatel complied with the disclosure requirements of the 28 March 2018 Order, and/or there is no or no sufficient basis for the further disclosure elements of the 15 May 2018 [PT Ventures'] application. The new elements of disclosure are an attempt to widen the ambit of the disclosure that it could have requested in the previous application. It is unnecessary and oppressive. (Halifax v Chandler  EWCA civ 1750 at -.
(v) There is no or no justifiable and /or sufficient basis for [PT Ventures] to be permitted to use information and documents ordered to be disclosed in these proceedings for the purpose of other proceedings. Vidatel should be granted a confidentiality order in respect of information and documents which it has disclosed and/or disclosed pursuant to orders of this court.
"...if it were necessary to reach a concluded view, I would be inclined to think that restraint on "dealing", in the context of a freezing order, was directed towards acts which had the effect that the asset was less available (or of less value) than it otherwise would be to meet whatever relief by way of damages the plaintiff (if successful in the action) might obtain..."
Already registered ?