Notice of breach of 5 December 2013 Settlement Contract
|to:||John Francas <firstname.lastname@example.org>,|
Carl Richards <email@example.com>,
|date:||Apr 27, 2020, 1:53 PM|
Under the terms of a Settlement Contract between PGS Exploration (UK) Limited (PGS) and Steven D Kalavity dated 5 December 2013 (the “Settlement Contract”), PGS agreed not publish or cause to be published any statement (whether of fact or opinion) which directly or indirectly disparages, is harmful to or damages the reputation or standing of the Employee.
Settlement Contract Confidentiality Clause 9.7:
9.7 In consideration for the obligations entered into by the Employee in this Clause 9, the Company agrees to make reasonable efforts:Settlement Agreement Confidentiality Clause 9.7
(a) neither to make nor publish, nor cause to be made or published, to anyone in any circumstances any statement (whether of fact or opinion) which directly or indirectly disparages, is harmful to or damages the reputation or standing of the Employee (save as may be required by law or regulation), nor to represent the Employee as an authorized agent/employee or otherwise of the Company once his employment has ended, andSettlement Agreement Confidentiality Clause 9.7(a)
(b) to keep the existence and terms of this Agreement and the circumstances giving rise to its making confidential and not to disclose, communicate or otherwise make public these terms to any third party save and except as required by law or regulation, or in confidence to its professional advisers.Settlement Agreement Confidentiality Clause 9.7(B)
PGS has also breached the Settlement Contract Confidentiality clause 9.6 through misrepresenting protected public disclosure as criminal defamation in Thailand. PGS has not followed policy or whistleblower procedures. PGS has illegally retaliated against a whistleblower through these intentional breaches.
Settlement Contract Confidentiality Clause 9.6:
9.6 Nothing in this Clause 9 shall prevent the Employee from disclosing information which he is entitled to disclose under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, provided that the disclosure is made in accordance with the provisions of that Act and the Employee has complied with the Company’s policy from time to time regarding such disclosure.Settlement Contract Confidentiality Clause 9.6
The Settlement Contract was referenced to be legally affirmed and valid by PGS within the 16 July 2018 response to the SDK submitted subject access request (2018 SAR Response).
Thai Criminal case number 2551/2561 claim document (“PGS Thai Claim”) was signed and dated by PGS directors: Rune Olav Pedersen, Gottfred Langseth, and Christin Steen-Nilsen 10 July 2018. PGS directors also affirmed the Settlement Contract.
Therefore, the PGS Thai Claim constitutes a material breach of the Settlement Contract by PGS. The PGS Thai Claim is not a valid legal instrument.
SDK is demanding the withdrawal of all claims and contracts that are a derivative of PGS ASA breaching the Settlement Contract.