This press release will be of relevance to Intrum Justitia AB 's numerous statements to the press. The Press Release will also be of relevance to the unnumbered note on page 10 of the 2004 Full-year Report of Intrum Justitia AB, listed on the Stockholm Stock Exchange; http://www.intrum.com
Intrum Justitia AB – Full-year report 2004 - Liabilities
In accordance to Intrum Justitia AB's recent statements in the Swedish newspaper, Dagens Industri(1), and in the Norwegian newspaper, VG (2), and its recently released Full-year report, Mr. Tore Kjell Nuland yet again wants to underline that his claims, referred to in the statements and in the unnumbered note on page 10 in the above mentioned report, has never been tried in any court in Norway. The information in this footnote (and in the statements) is therefore inaccurate and false.
It is correct that a damaging suit was opened in Oslo City Court on 2 nd May 1988 , but the claim mentioned above was never tried in a court of law. However , the procedural question whether our client , as a stockholder , was in possession of a legal right to sue (for damages) the members of the illegitimate board of Justitia AS and Skandia Lloyd AS for draining Mr. Nuland's companies for assets , was decided upon. In this decision Mr. Nuland was approved – as a stockholder – to bring forward his legal claims to court.
Bo Göranson's(3) attempt to – illegitimately – go public with Mr. Nuland's companies on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange in 1987, together with Mr. Nuland's legal granted right by the court in the above mentioned case (LE-1989-00244, Borgarting Court of Appeal, Norway) , led Mr Göranson (Goeranson, Gøranson) and/or his co-workers (in 1989) to constrain Mr Nuland by duress into a statement , but not into an agreement. Tore Nuland was not a part of the so-called agreement of 1989, and has by this reason never signed such an agreement.
On the other hand, Gøranson and his co-workers that together with Gøranson conspired against Nuland, produced an agreement that was meant to be legally binding between Gøranson/Justitia and Tore Nulands children. Mr Nuland effortlessly regards this agreement as of no legal force.
As an effect of the statement and this so-called agreement(4), the claims were withdrawn from the City Court, before they ever were tried. This action will , however , by no means halt any further legal proceedings based upon the ownership of the stocks, challenging both the illicit statement and the so-called agreement, or actions related to this.
The Full-year report of 2004, states that claims have been tried "…without any possibility for further appeal.", and that "The claims were viewed to be without any merit." Due to the details mentioned above, these statements are misleading and false. It is worth a thought that Gøranson/Justitia has never pointed out or displayed what court and what court-decision that allegedly supports their statements.
The fact that this alleged court decision does not exist, gives Intrum Justitia AB 's misleading and false statements to the public an even graver effect.
On behalf of Mr. Nuland we would like to proclaim that the application for litigation – in the case Nuland vs Intrum Justitia AB and other – was accepted by Stockholms tingsrätt on 29 th October 2002 .
In this law suit Mr. Nuland claims that he is – and has always been – the rightful owner of the Intrum Justitia AS. Basically, this argument is based on: 1.) In several unlawful and criminal actions(5) in the early 1980's Mr. Bo Goeranson and Justitia International AB managed to deceive Mr. Nuland to simulate a sale of all his major companies(6) to the former. 2.) This simulated deal or any later statements or agreement is of no legal force. It is a fact that Mr. Nuland has never sold or transferred neither his stocks nor his ownership of his companies to any person or company(7). There is simply no evidence of legal force that can refute this fact.
It has now been clarified that Mr. Bo Gøransons and Intrum Justitia AB's “takeover” in 1982 were made possible through several criminal actions. As a consequence Gøranson/Justitia never fulfilled or met the Norwegian national Bank's (Norges Bank) given regulations/demands pursuant to the Norwegian currency act, para 2, second section, stating that:
Transferring of a share in a Norwegian company is not valid against the company and cannot with legal effect be approved as long as the transfer is in conflict with given regulations/instructions pursuant to this act (Valutaloven).
The mere fact that Gøranson's/Justitia's takeover were made possible solely due to criminal actions, must give the conclusion that such claimed ownership can never be legal, and can by this reason never be accepted/approved by the court nor by the law.
Additionally Intrum Justitia AB has been sued before the city magistrate of Oslo , and the main hearing will take place april 5 th through april 8 th 2005 . At this hearing the court will be given all the facts that prove the conspiracy and the criminal takeover.
During the process in Stockholms tingsrätt it has become quite clear that both the illicit statement and agreement mentioned above, is of no legal force. This means that Mr. Nuland, still is - in the absence of contrary evidence – the only rightful owner of the Norwegian companies incorporated in Intrum Justitia AB (which means that Mr. Nuland is entitled to at least 25% of the company Intrum Justitia AB). On top of this Mr. Nuland will claim for damages for his economical loss. Mr Nulands total demand is apr. Nok 6.5 billions .
For further information on this matter, please contact:
Mr. Herman J Berge
Mobil : +47 958 40 531
Phone : +47 67 53 74 03
Fax : +47 67 53 65 57
e-mail : email@example.com
(3) Co-owner and member of the board of Intrum Justitia AB
(4) And the fact that Intrum BV at that time wouldn't live through this law suit, a consequence which would directly have harmed Mr. Nulands interest in the company as well
(5) Gross fraud
(6) While Mr. Nuland was in custody for alleged embezzlement or fraud. Later on, in 1985, Mr. Nuland was convicted. At present we are working on a reopening of this case.
(7) These mentioned companies are: Justitia AS (today incorporated in Intrum Justitia AB), Skandia Lloyd AS and Soliditet AS (today incorporated in Dun & Bradstreet).
RettsNorge.no © 1997-2009 • Opphavsrett