IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No.: _______________ 

BROADSHEET LLC, an Isle of Man entity, 

 Petitioner, 

To Issue Subpoenas For the Production of 

Documents. 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION AND 

APPLICATION FOR ORDER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1782 PERMITTING PETITIONER 

TO ISSUE SUBPOENAS FOR THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE 

ESTATE OF EDGAR JEROME JAMES AND RELATED INDIVIDUALS 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 32
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND............................................................................................. 4 

A. The Underlying Asset Recovery Agreement Between Isle of ManRegistered Broadsheet (IOM) and the Government, and its Repeated 

Breaches by the Government.................................................................................. 4 

B. The Sham Settlement with the Government Using Deceptive Corporate 

Artifices Established by Mr. James ........................................................................ 8 

C. Broadsheet (IOM) Commences A Foreign Arbitration Against the 

Government and Contemplates Another Arbitration Under the U.K.-

Pakistan Bilateral Investment Treaty.................................................................... 14 

III. SECTION 1782 ENTITLES BROADSHEET TO TAKE DISCOVERY FROM 

RESPONDENTS THAT IS CRITICAL TO BOTH THE NOTICED 

ARBITRATION BEFORE THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF 

ARBITRATORS AND THE CONTEMPLATED BIT ARBITRATION........................ 16 

A. The Discovery Sought Is Relevant To and Necessary For The Foreign 

Arbitration and Well Within The Scope of The Federal Rules ............................ 19 

B. Respondents Are Not Participants in the Foreign Noticed Arbitration and 

Would Not Be Participants in the Contemplated BIT Arbitration........................ 22 

C. Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitral Panels and Private Arbitrators 

Historically Have Been Receptive To Federal Court Assistance Under 

Section 1782.......................................................................................................... 22 

D. This Petition Is An Attempt To Obtain Probative and Relevant Evidence 

For Foreign Proceedings and In No Way Circumvents Foreign ProofGathering Restrictions .......................................................................................... 24 

E. The Discovery Requested By This Petition Is Appropriately Focused ................ 25 

IV. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................. 26 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 32
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s) 

CASES

Fleischmann v. McDonald’s Corp., 

466 F. Supp. 2d 1020 (N.D. Ill. 2006) ...............................................................................15, 18 

In re Application of Hallmark Capital Corp., 

534 F. Supp. 2d 951 (D. Minn. 2007)......................................................................................16 

In re Application of Imanagement Servs. Ltd., 

No. 05-2311, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8876 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 2006) ........................................22 

In re Bayer AG, 

146 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 1998)...............................................................................................18, 24 

In re Clerici, 

481 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2007) ...............................................................................................18

In re Letter of Request from Supreme Court of Hong Kong, 

138 F.R.D. 27 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) ...............................................................................................15 

In re Merck & Co., 

197 F.R.D. 267 (M.D.N.C. 2000) ............................................................................................17 

In re Oxus Gold PLC, No. MISC 06-82-GEB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24061 

(D.N.J. Apr. 2, 2007) ...............................................................................................................21 

In re Roz Trading Ltd., 

2007 WL 120844 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 11, 2007).............................................................................22 

In re Roz Trading Ltd., 

469 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (N.D. Ga. 2006)..............................................................................16, 22 

In re Schottdorf, 

2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94161 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006) .......................................................17 

In re Winning (HK) Shipping Co., 

No. 09-22659-MC, 2010 WL 1796579 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2010) ....................................17, 21 

Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 

542 U.S. 241 (2004)......................................................................................................... passim 

Metallgesellschaft AG v. Hodapp, 

121 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 1997).......................................................................................................24 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 32
iii

Minatec Fin. S.A.R.L. v. SI Group Inc., 

No. 08-cv- 269, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63802 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2008)............................23 

Philips v. Beierwaltes, 

466 F.3d 1217 (10th Cir. 2006) ...............................................................................................15

Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp., 

No. 3:09 MC 265 (JBA), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109492 (D. Conn. Aug. 27, 2009) ............21 

STATUTES

28 U.S.C. § 1782.................................................................................................................... passim 

Companies Acts 1931 (Isle of Man) ..............................................................................................13 

Judicature Act 1883 (Isle of Man) .................................................................................................13 

Limited Liability Companies Act 1996 (Isle of Man) .............................................................11, 13 

NAB Ordinance, 1999 (No. XVIII of 1999) (Pakistan)...................................................................6 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 32
I. INTRODUCTION 

In connection with a noticed foreign arbitration and another contemplated bilateral 

investment treaty arbitration, Petitioner Broadsheet LLC, an Isle of Man entity (“Broadsheet 

(IOM)”), petitions this Court for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 authorizing it to take 

discovery from the Estate of Edgar Jerome “Jerry” James (“Estate”), Steeplechase Advisors LLC 

(a/k/a Steeplechase Financial Services LLC and Steeplechase Capital LLC) (collectively, 

“Steeplechase”), Broadsheet LLC (Colorado) (“Broadsheet (Colorado)”), Sovereign Corporate & 

Fiscal Services (Colorado) LLC (“Sovereign”), and Douglas M. Tisdale, Sr., Esq. (collectively, 

“Respondents”). The requested discovery is needed in connection with Broadsheet LLC v. The 

National Accountability Bureau of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, an arbitration claim noticed 

under the Rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London (to be held in Dublin), by 

Broadsheet (IOM) against the Government of Pakistan (“the Government”). Broadsheet (IOM) 

is also invoking the pre-filing consultation procedures for a parallel contemplated investment 

arbitral claim under the Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great 

Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan for the 

Promotion and Protection of Investments,” entered into 30 November 1994 (the “UK-Pakistan 

BIT”). 

The underlying dispute arises out of a contract entered into on 20 June 2000 by 

Broadsheet (IOM) and the Government of Pakistan by and through its National Accountability 

Bureau (“NAB”)1

 wherein Broadsheet (IOM) was granted an exclusive and unlimited concession 

(“Asset Recovery Agreement” or the “Agreement”) to recover assets looted from the Pakistani 

 

1

 Except where specific reference is made to NAB, the term “Government” should be understood as making 

reference to the Government of Pakistan acting by and through its agency the NAB. 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 32
2

people by certain high-profile, powerful, and corrupt government officials (the “Targets”). 

Among many other well-documented breaches, the Government breached the Agreement by 

failing to fulfill its contractual obligations to assist Broadsheet (IOM) in its duties, and by 

entering into settlements with certain targets unbeknownst to Broadsheet (IOM), thereby 

depriving Broadsheet (IOM) of its twenty-percent fee for recoveries obtained from the targets. 

Broadsheet (IOM) seeks documents from Respondents chiefly because they almost 

certainly have within their possession, custody or control documents containing evidence that 

would prove Broadsheet (IOM)’s efforts to fulfill its obligations under the Agreement with the 

Government, and to disprove the Government’s proffered reasons for its numerous breaches and 

purported termination. As a secondary matter, Broadsheet also seeks discovery in this action 

because the late Edgar Jerome “Jerry” James (“Mr. James”) appears to have established 

corporate shell entities in Gibraltar and Colorado also known as Broadsheet LLC (“Broadsheet 

(Gibraltar)” and “Broadsheet (Colorado),” respectively) in order to support a sham settlement of 

claims with the NAB to which only the Broadsheet (IOM) entity was rightfully entitled to settle. 

Using Broadsheet (Gibraltar) and Broadsheet (Colorado), among other shell corporations 

that he controlled, Mr. James apparently either deceived the Government, or colluded with the 

Government or its agents or officials, or benefited from its willful ignorance in entering into a 

purported settlement of claims—despite the fact that the authentic Isle of Man-registered 

Broadsheet (IOM) entity had nothing to do with the settlement. Broadsheet (IOM) could not 

possibly have entered into any settlement because it was dissolved at the time of Mr. James’ 

sham settlement with the Government, and the Manx liquidator did not authorize this settlement 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 32
3

at any time before or after such dissolution.2 Only the legitimate Broadsheet (IOM) entity could 

have terminated the Asset Recovery Agreement and settled Broadsheet (IOM)’s claims against 

NAB. 

Evidence further suggests that Mr. James perpetrated a fraudulent assignment to help 

prop up the sham settlement with the Government. Based upon recitals in the sham settlement 

agreement and his accompanying affidavit, it appears Mr. James secretly attempted to assign 

(possibly through the use of backdated documents) Broadsheet (IOM)’s rights to pursue its 

claims against the Government to one or more of his alter ego corporate shell entities just two 

months before Broadsheet (IOM) was first put into liquidation by the High Court of Justice in the 

Isle of Man. Under Manx insolvency law, Mr. James, acting for Broadsheet (IOM), could not 

lawfully have entered into a lawful assignment of its rights to pursue claims against the 

Government, as the assignment was purportedly executed immediately before Broadsheet (IOM) 

was ordered into liquidation. Such a transfer of Broadsheet (IOM)’s interest in the claim on the 

eve of liquidation would be voidable under Manx insolvency law as Mr. James was a “connected 

person” who was attempting to transfer assets for his own benefit. 

Broadsheet (IOM) has taken steps to commence an arbitration under the Rules of the 

Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London, against the Government concerning its breaches of 

the Asset Recovery Agreement. Broadsheet (IOM) is also invoking consultation with the 

Government in connection with a contemplated arbitral claim under the U.K.-Pakistan bilateral 

investment treaty based upon violation of treaty provisions requiring fair and equitable treatment 

 

2

 Broadsheet (IOM) has since been reinstated in the Isle of Man and is authorized by the current court-appointed 

liquidator to pursue arbitrations against the Government for its breaches of the Agreement and its obligations under 

the BIT. 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 32
4

of foreign investors and good faith adherence to contractual terms with U.K.-based entities. 

Broadsheet (IOM) is thus an “interested person” within the meaning of Section 1782. 

Moreover, the targets of this discovery, namely the Estate, Steeplechase, Broadsheet 

(Colorado), Sovereign, and Douglas M. Tisdale, Sr., Esq., the heavily-involved attorney to 

Broadsheet (IOM), pre-liquidation, are found within this District. Broadsheet (IOM) thus meets 

all the statutory criteria for the issuance of an order allowing the requested discovery. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1782. As set forth herein, all the discretionary factors that this Court may consider 

likewise favor granting this Petition. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

A. The Underlying Asset Recovery Agreement Between Isle of Man-Registered 

Broadsheet (IOM) and the Government, and its Repeated Breaches by the 

Government 

Broadsheet (IOM) and the Government formally entered into the Asset Recovery 

Agreement in June 2000 after substantial negotiations between the principals of Broadsheet 

(IOM) and the NAB’s Prosecutor General. (See Exh. A, Decl. of William F. Pepper, Esq. 

(“Pepper Decl.”), Asset Recovery Agreement (“Agreement”).) The Agreement was signed by 

Broadsheet (IOM) representative, Dr. William F. Pepper, on behalf of Broadsheet (IOM), and by 

Lt. General Syed Amjad, on behalf of the Government as then-Chairman of the NAB, which is 

the Pakistani government agency responsible for recovering assets stolen through Pakistani 

government corruption or diversion by Pakistani government officials. Two companies had been 

formed to assist NAB pursue the targeted assets worldwide. Broadsheet (IOM), formed by 

Colorado businessman Mr. James and Dr. Pepper, was empowered by the Agreement to recover 

assets diverted to the private accounts of the powerful Sharif family and their cooperating 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 32
5

associates. A separate company not directly relevant to the underlying dispute or this action 

under Section 1782, entitled “International Asset Recovery Limited” (“IAR”), was formed for 

the purpose of recovering assets from the Bhutto family. At varying points in time NAB was 

dealing with IAR and Broadsheet (IOM) simultaneously. Broadsheet (IOM) is informed and 

believes that certain documents relating to IAR may be comingled with those in the possession 

of the Respondents or are located in the jurisdiction of this Court. These documents may be 

relevant to Broadsheet (IOM)’s claims and defenses and thus, are included in the discovery 

requests set forth in this Petition. 

In exchange for Broadsheet (IOM)’s significant investment in establishing a liaison staff 

in Islamabad, undertaking investigations, and commencing legal actions worldwide, the 

Government expressly committed to “jointly share” any assets recovered as a result of 

Broadsheet (IOM)’s efforts or as a result of settlements between the Government and any Target. 

In that regard, the Agreement clarified: “[f]or the removal of any doubt, the share of the assets 

recovered . . . shall also apply to any settlement by NAB and any registered person or entity with 

or without the involvement of Broadsheet.” (See Exh. A, Pepper Decl., Agreement, cl. 4.1 

(emphasis added).) Broadsheet (IOM)’s share of all recoveries and settlements was set at 

twenty percent. (Id. at cl. 4.2.) Thus, pursuant to the Asset Recovery Agreement, Broadsheet 

(IOM) was to receive twenty percent of any amount recovered from the approximately 200 

targets that it had been allocated. (Id. at cls. 4.1-4.2.) 

In recognition of the substantial investment expected to be made by Broadsheet (IOM) as 

well as the prospect for an unexpected change in the political support for anti-corruption efforts 

in the Pakistani government, the parties expressly agreed that a notice of termination would not 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 32
6

affect Broadsheet (IOM)’s continuing rights: (a) to pursue its recovery efforts for the registered 

Targets; and (b) to share the recoveries and settlements of registered Targets, whether the 

recoveries or settlements took place before or after termination of the Agreement. (Exh. A, 

Pepper Decl., Agreement, cl. 18.5; Exh. B, Pepper Decl., Affidavit of Farouk Adam Khan 

(“Khan Aff.”) ¶ 7.) The parties also expressly agreed that notwithstanding the termination 

provisions set forth in Clauses 18.1-18.4, the Agreement and the Powers of Attorney to pursue 

registered Targets could not be “revoked” or “modified” until “the last of the Registered Claims 

has been settled or litigated and reduced to a final, non-appealable judgment” or were “fully 

collected, paid, settled, or abandoned.” (Exh. A, Pepper Decl., Agreement, cl. 18.7.) In 

fulfillment of its contractual duties, Broadsheet (IOM) undertook significant asset-recovery 

work, incurring expenses upwards of USD 5-7 million and positioning itself to seize substantial 

assets from several of the Targets. 

Well-documented changes in the political climate in Pakistan during this period, 

however, had much to do with the numerous breaches of the Agreement by the Government, as 

well as its subsequent purported termination. At the time the Agreement was made in June 2000, 

General Pervez Musharraf had recently come to power in a military coup with the declared 

intention of improving transparency and financial integrity, stamping out the rampant corruption 

at all levels of Pakistani government, and returning to the Pakistani treasury billions of dollars of 

assets pilfered by military and civilian government officials during the 1990s.3

 Building on this 

anti-corruption crusade, on 16 November 1999, General Musharraf adopted the National 

Accountability Bureau Ordinance which established the NAB and gave it extraordinary powers 

 

3 See C. Gall et al., For Musharraf, Reduced Power as the President, N.Y. Times, 29 Nov. 2007, available at 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/world/asia/29pakistan.html (last visited 12 Sept. 2011). 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 32
7

to detain alleged corrupt officials and seize their ill-gotten assets.4 Unfortunately, the political 

winds quickly shifted and by late 2000 this anti-corruption crusade was beginning to retreat as 

part of a backlash from the reforms.5 Both Lieutenant General Syed Muhammad Amjad, the 

founding Chairman of the NAB, and noted Supreme Court advocate Farouk Adam Khan, the 

first Prosecutor General of NAB, both resigned their positions “due to unacceptable prevailing 

circumstances,”6 namely, the beginning of the political shift of the agency’s mission from 

recovery and repatriation of stolen assets to protection and rehabilitation of the corrupt Targets 

who then reemerged as powerful figures in Pakistani politics.7

Thus, approximately two years after NAB and Broadsheet (IOM) entered into the 

Agreement, the political changes within Pakistan caused the tone of NAB to change drastically 

from its original anti-corruption mission to an effort to protect Targets from seizure of their 

property. It has come to light that NAB had since entered into settlements and plea bargains with 

numerous targets without notifying Broadsheet (IOM) or paying Broadsheet (IOM) its fee for 

these targets. Oftentimes, NAB simply instructed Broadsheet (IOM) to cease its pursuit of these 

targets. In one instance, Broadsheet (IOM) froze approximately USD 5 million in the Isle of 

Jersey belonging to an identified target but was subsequently chastised by the Government to 

desist in pursuing these assets. In another instance, the Government reached a settlement directly 

with a target allegedly valued at USD 25 million but refused to pay Broadsheet (IOM) its 

 

4

 See NAB Ordinance, 1999 (No. XVIII of 1999). 

5 See C. Gall et al., For Musharraf, Reduced Power as the President, N.Y. Times, 29 Nov. 2007, available at 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/29/world/asia/29pakistan.html (last visited 12 Sept. 2011). 

6

 (Exh. B, Pepper Decl., Affidavit of Farouk Adam Khan (“Khan Aff.”) ¶ 12.) 

7

 Griffe Witte, Popular Former Prime Minister Is Back in Pakistani Politics, Wash. Post, 27 May 2009, available 

at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600554_pf.html (last visited 12 

Sept. 2011) 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 32
8

commission as per the Agreement. For all of its work over several years, Broadsheet (IOM) was 

paid only one small fee in connection with a recovery from Admiral Mansour-ul-Haq, one of the 

listed targets, and the amount paid likely was less than it should have been under the terms of the 

Agreement. 

On 28 October 2003, the Government, through its London solicitors Kendall Freeman, 

issued a letter attempting to terminate the Agreement on the alleged grounds that Broadsheet 

(IOM) had made misrepresentations about its abilities and was not carrying out its duties. (See 

Exh. C, Pepper Decl., Termination Letter.) In reality, it appears that the Government had settled 

with a substantial number of the targets without notifying Broadsheet (IOM) or paying its 

commission under the Agreement. (See Exh. A, Pepper Decl., Agreement, cls. 4.1-4.2.) But as 

expressly negotiated by the parties in the Agreement, the Government’s 28 October 2003 notice 

of termination did not extinguish Broadsheet (IOM)’s rights to continue to pursue outstanding 

targets and to receive its fee for all specified targets, even those recovered by NAB after the 

termination. (See Exh. A, Pepper Decl., Agreement, cl. 4.1, 18.5.) 

B. The Sham Settlement with the Government Using Deceptive Corporate Artifices 

Established by Mr. James 

As a result of the damaging financial effects of the Government’s several breaches and 

purported termination of the Agreement in October 2003, Broadsheet (IOM) was ordered into 

liquidation in March 2005, as it owed substantial debts to its Jersey advocates and various other 

service providers. (Exh. D, Pepper Decl., Order Placing Company into Liquidation and 

Appointing Provisional Liquidator, 7 Mar. 2005.) 

However, it has since come to light that Mr. James was secretly pursuing and negotiating 

a settlement with the Government purportedly for Broadsheet (IOM)’s claims. Due to the 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 32
9

change in the political climate within Pakistan, the Government was receptive to simultaneously 

settling any claims with both IAR and Broadsheet (IOM) because it wished to fully extinguish 

the exclusive concessions created by the asset recovery agreements with both entities, and 

apparently recognized that its termination letter of 28 October 2003 did not achieve that result. 

(See Exh. E, Pepper Decl., Letter of Ahmer Bilal Soofi to William F. Pepper, 30 Mar. 2007). A 

simultaneous settlement of claims of both IAR and Broadsheet (IOM) was not possible, 

however, because the High Court of the Isle of Man ordered the dissolution of Broadsheet (IOM) 

on 2 April 2007. (Exh. F, Pepper Decl., Order Releasing Liquidator and Dissolving Company, 2 

Apr. 2007.)8

 Thus, between 2 April 2007 and 27 November 2009, Broadsheet (IOM) could not 

have legally entered into any settlement arrangement with NAB.9 

Mr. James, the original founder of Broadsheet (IOM), either with the knowledge and 

participation of the Government or not, concocted a series of fraudulent transactions in a 

desperate attempt to settle with NAB. This fraud was completed by his entering into a sham 

“Settlement Agreement” on 20 May 2008 for the sum of USD 1,500,000, which purported to 

settle any and all claims of “Broadsheet LLC” against the Government. In satisfaction of this 

sham settlement, the High Commission for Pakistan in London made payments directly to Mr. 

James in the amount of approximately USD 631,626 on or about 20 May 2008 and for the 

remaining amount of USD 868,374 through Compass Bank, Northglenn, Colorado, on or about 

 

8

 This dissolution was later declared void by the Manx Court on 27 November 2009. (Exh. K, Pepper Decl., Order 

Voiding Dissolution, 27 Nov. 2009.) This court action reinstated Broadsheet (IOM) and appointed a liquidator who 

then authorized Broadsheet (IOM) to commence arbitrations against the Government and NAB. (Exh. T, Pepper 

Decl., Letter of R. Harper to W.F. Pepper, 15 July 2011.) 

9

 Knowing the incapacity of Broadsheet (IOM) to enter into a deal with NAB to settle all claims, IAR alone entered 

into a settlement agreement on 7 December 2007. This settlement agreement was expressly and exclusively 

between IAR and the Government and NAB and exclusively encompassed settlement of only IAR’s claims. It did 

not refer to or purport to cover the larger, unfulfilled claims of Broadsheet (IOM). 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 32
10

29 September 2008. (See Exh. G, Pepper Decl., Settlement Payment Records.) Mr. James10 had 

no authority to act on behalf of the only relevant entity—Broadsheet (IOM)—and his confusing 

efforts to circumvent this disability were merely a shell game without legal effect.11 

The sham “Settlement Agreement” and Mr. James’s attached affidavit are riddled with 

false and deceptive statements designed to cover up the fact that Broadsheet (IOM) had been 

dissolved and was incapable of settling with the Government in May 2008. As an example of his 

fraudulent dealing, Mr. James represented in the sham settlement agreement that he was a 

shareholder and beneficiary of “Broadsheet LLC under winding-up” and in his affidavit that he 

was “fully authorized to execute the Settlement Agreement.” (Exh. H, Pepper Decl., Sham 

Settlement Agreement, p. 14, 20 May 2008; Exh. I, Pepper Decl., Affidavit of E. Jerry James in 

Support of Purported Settlement Agreement (“James Aff.”) ¶ 4, 20 May 2008.) 

These representations were false and deceptive. The only possible company by the name 

of Broadsheet LLC “under winding up” was Broadsheet LLC (IOM)—and it was dissolved at 

 

10 The sham “Settlement Agreement” was signed by Mr. James as “Shareholder and beneficiary of Broadsheet LLC 

(under winding up),” as Manager of Steeplechase Financial Services LLC (“Steeplechase”), a Colorado company 

whose date of incorporation and registered office were left conspicuously blank and which is stated to have entered 

into the shoes of “Broadsheet LLC Gibraltar” and through an assignment received the claims of “Broadsheet LLC 

under winding-up;” and as Chairman of “Broadsheet LLC,” whose date and place of incorporation and location of 

its registered office were left suspiciously blank. The document initially defines “BS” to mean this last referenced 

but conspicuously unidentified Broadsheet entity, but it then says that “BS was also re-incorporated in Denver, 

Colorado after Broadsheet LLC Gibraltar was under winding-up.” The sham agreement then defines BS as being 

the entity that had entered into the Agreement with the Government in June 2000 – which we know to be Broadsheet 

LLC, an Isle of Man entity. The sham agreement was supported by affidavits under oath by Mr. James and by Mr. 

Tariq Fawad Malik, who worked with Broadsheet (IOM) in Pakistan. 

11 The late Mr. James demonstrated a propensity for creating numerous companies with principal mailing addresses 

or registered addresses at his home address, which, as a sampling, included just within Colorado: Sovereign 

Corporate & Fiscal Services (Colorado) LLC, Steeplechase Advisors LLC, Steeplechase Financial Services LLC, 

Steeplechase Capital LLC, Boaz Foundation, James Foundation, Centennial City Center Corporation, and even a 

Colorado-incorporated entity named “Broadsheet LLC.” The types of business activities undertaken by many of 

these entities are unclear. As demonstrated by the duplicity of the secret, sham settlement, Broadsheet (IOM) has a 

significant interest in obtaining documents from the Estate concerning the finances of each of these various alter ego 

entities that were used to perpetuate a fraud on the Government and on Broadsheet (IOM). The books and records 

of these various companies are reasonably presumed to be within the possession, custody or control of the Estate. 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 32
11

that time.12 Broadsheet (IOM) is a limited liability company that had no shareholders, managers, 

officers or operating agreement. The management and profits of Manx LLC entities are vested 

in “members.” Until 27 November 2009—long after the sham settlement agreement was 

executed—the only members of Broadsheet LLC (IOM) were two Panamanian corporations, 

Berkshire International Holdings, Inc. and Oxford International Holdings, Inc. (Exh. J, Pepper 

Decl., Articles of Organisation of Broadsheet LLC, 12 May 2000.) Upon information and belief, 

neither of these entities provided Mr. James with powers of attorney to act on their behalf in May 

2008, or at any time, and if they had, the powers of attorney would have terminated when 

Broadsheet (IOM) was dissolved on 2 April 2007. From 2 April 2007 to 27 November 2009 

Broadsheet LLC was dissolved and legally incapable of conferring or extending powers of 

attorney on Mr. James. Mr. James’ signature on the sham settlement agreement as “Chairman” 

of “Broadsheet LLC” was similarly false and deceptive. (Exh. H, Pepper Decl., Sham 

Settlement Agreement p. 14, 20 May 2008.) Under Manx law, the management of a limited 

liability company is vested in its members or a manager elected by the members, if provision for 

such an election is provided in the company’s articles of organization. (Limited Liability 

Companies Act 1996, §§ 17(1) and (3)). Significantly, Mr. James could not have exercised any 

management authority for Broadsheet (IOM) because he was not a member—and Broadsheet 

(IOM)’s articles of organization made no provision for the election of a manager, much less a 

“Chairman.” (Exh. J, Articles of Organization of Broadsheet LLC, 12 May 2000.) 

 

12 The numerous references to “Broadsheet LLC,” “Broadsheet LLC (under winding up),” “Broadsheet LLC 

Gibraltar” and of a “Broadsheet LLC” purportedly incorporated in Colorado were obviously added to confuse the 

identity of the only entity with a real interest in the Agreement; namely Broadsheet LLC, an Isle of Man entity that 

we refer to as Broadsheet (IOM) in this memorandum of law. Until it received a copy of the sham settlement 

agreement, Broadsheet (IOM) was not aware of any entity by the same name in Gibraltar or Colorado, nor were 

those entities ever involved in executing or implementing the Agreement. 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 32
12

As another instance of his fraud, Mr. James represented in the sham settlement agreement 

and in his Affidavit that he was fully authorized to execute the sham settlement agreement “on 

behalf of BS” which he had defined as the entity that had entered into the Agreement with the 

Government. (Exh. I, Pepper Decl., James Aff. ¶ 4, 20 May 2008; Exh. H, Pepper Decl., Sham 

Settlement Agreement ¶ 24, 20 May 2008.) He also represented that there “is no reason known 

to [him] of any existing obstacle or reason which would render the execution of this Settlement 

Agreement invalid.” (Exh. H, Pepper Decl., Sham Settlement Agreement ¶ 24, 20 May 2008.) 

These statements were patently false. As shown, Mr. James knew he had no powers of attorney 

to act on behalf of an entity that, at that time, was dissolved. His representations about “Mr. 

Tariq Fawad” also having such authority were equally false. (Exh. I, Pepper Decl., James Aff. 

¶¶ 9-10, 20 May 2008.) 

Mr. James further represented that “the present claim is neither the subject matter of any 

winding up proceedings anywhere nor listed as a claim with any liquidator.” (Exh. I, Pepper 

Decl., James Aff. ¶ 5, 20 May 2008.) He also represented that “other than Steeplechase no other 

person or entity has or has had any interest in the claims, demands, obligations or causes of 

action referred to in the Settlement Agreement.” (Exh. I, Pepper Decl., James Aff. ¶ 12, 20 May 

2008.) These statements were false and deceptive. Broadsheet (IOM)—not Mr. James, 

Steeplechase or any other purported Broadsheet LLC entity—has always been the only entity 

with interest in Broadsheet (IOM)’s claims against the Government and it was dissolved and 

incapable of entering into a settlement of its claims in May 2008. Broadsheet (IOM)’s 

continuing interest in its claims against the Government was explicitly recognized in the 27 

November 2009 order of the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man voiding the dissolution 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 32
13

order of 2 April 2007, reinstating Broadsheet (IOM) to the status of an entity in liquidation, and 

appointing a liquidator to serve as official receiver in the winding up of the company. (Exh. K, 

Pepper Decl., Order Voiding Dissolution ¶¶ 1-5, 27 Nov. 2009.) In particular, the November 

2009 order noted that Broadsheet (IOM) was reinstated for the purpose of pursuing “the 

Company’s claim against the Government of Pakistan arising from the latter’s breach of the 

terms of the Agreement entered into between the Company and the Government of Pakistan 

dated 20 June 2000.” (Exh. K, Pepper Decl., Order Voiding Dissolution ¶ 5, 27 Nov. 2009.) 

Mr. James and the sham settlement agreement falsely alleged that Broadsheet (IOM)’s 

claims under the Agreement were assigned to Steeplechase Financial Services LLC on 4 January 

2005. (Exh. I, Pepper Decl., James Aff. ¶¶ 2, 12, 20 May 2008; Exh. H, Pepper Decl., Sham 

Settlement Agreement, Recital G, 20 May 2008.) Of course, if this had been a valid assignment, 

there would have been no need to include Mr. James or any other Broadsheet LLC entity in the 

sham settlement agreement in 2008. If such an assignment had been attempted in January 2005, 

it would have required “written consent” of the Government to be effective under Clause 13.1 of 

the Agreement. (See Exh. A, Pepper Decl., Agreement, cl. 13.1.) Given that this also would 

have constituted an assignment of a chose in action, namely, Broadsheet’s right to recover 

payment of a debt, written notice to the Government as the debtor would also have been required 

under Section 14(5) of the Isle of Man Judicature Act of 1883. Judicature Act 1883, § 14(5). 

None of long-time counsel, the liquidators of Broadsheet (IOM), nor most importantly, the thenexisting “members” of Broadsheet (IOM) were ever informed about or approved this purported 

assignment, nor are they aware of any indication that the Government had provided written 

consent with respect to this purported assignment. As shown, the current liquidator of 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 32
14

Broadsheet (IOM) plainly believes that the claims under the Agreement continue to be an asset 

of Broadsheet (IOM) in liquidation.13 

Plainly, even a cursory inspection of the sham settlement and its attached affidavits 

reveals Mr. James’ striking, confusing and inconsistent representations of his authority in this 

purported settlement.14 Broadsheet (IOM) has great need for the documents within Respondents’ 

possession as they will help to show the earnest work of Broadsheet (IOM) in fulfilling its 

contractual obligations and the Government’s numerous breaches, as well as to help prove the 

invalidity of the 20 May 2008 sham settlement. 

C. Broadsheet (IOM) Commences A Foreign Arbitration Against the Government and 

Contemplates Another Arbitration Under the U.K.-Pakistan Bilateral Investment 

Treaty 

Following unsuccessful attempts to resolve this matter amicably and the Government’s 

unresponsiveness to several prior notices, this proceeding under Section 1782 has been filed in 

furtherance of Broadsheet (IOM)’s prosecution of its arbitral claims. Broadsheet (IOM) had 

previously tendered a “Second Notice of Intention to Proceed to Arbitration,” dated 23 October 

2009 (“Second Notice”), to the Government, which, together with subsequent correspondence, 

served to commence the arbitration under the rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators in 

 

13 Even assuming arguendo that an assignment had taken place in January 2005, as stated by Mr. James, and further 

assuming that it had been authorized by the members of Broadsheet (IOM)—which it had not—the assignment 

would have been deemed ineffective under the insolvency laws of the Isle of Man, as it would have constituted a 

fraudulent preference by a connected person a matter of weeks before Broadsheet (IOM) went into liquidation by 

court order on 7 March 2005. Such a fraudulent preference would be deemed null and void and its value would 

have to revert to the company in insolvency proceedings. See Limited Liability Companies Act 1996, § 31; 

Companies Acts 1931, § 250. 

14 Notwithstanding its invalidity, the sham settlement is a glaring admission against interest that the Government 

believed on 20 May 2008—nearly five years after the alleged termination in 2003—that Broadsheet LLC had a 

continuing valid claim for damages under the Agreement. Significantly, in the fourth Recital of the sham 

settlement, the Government did not deny liability under the Agreement, it merely “disagreed with the amount of 

[Broadsheet LLC’s] claim.” (Exh. H, Pepper Decl., Sham Settlement Agreement, Recital D, 20 May 2008.) 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 32
15

accordance with Clause 7.1 of the Asset Recovery Agreement. (Exh. L, Pepper Decl., Second 

Notice to Arbitrate, 23 Oct. 2009.) For example, a letter of 21 July 2010 to NAB’s attorney from 

predecessor counsel for Broadsheet (IOM), Mr. Seth Taube of Baker Botts LLP, reaffirmed the 

October 2009 demand for arbitration and sought an immediate meeting with the Government to 

discuss the dispute. (Exh. M, Pepper Decl., Letter of Baker Botts LLP to Ahmer Bilal Soofi, 21 

July 2010.) 

The Government acknowledged this claim by way of letter dated 28 July 2010 from the 

NAB Chief of Staff, Mr. Muhammad Ashfaq Ashraf, who recognized the pendency of the 

previously-noticed arbitration claim and advised that “[t]he relevant documents are being looked 

into and after proper scrutiny of the record an appropriate response would be furnished in due 

course according to law.” (Exh. N, Pepper Decl., Letter of Muhammad Ashfaq Ashraf to Baker 

Botts LLP, 28 July 2010.) Broadsheet (IOM)’s counsel followed up with another letter on 28 

September 2010 pressing its intention to arbitrate and proposing three arbitrators. (Exh. O, 

Pepper Decl., Letter of Baker Botts LLP to NAB and Ahmer Bilal Soofi, 28 Sept. 2010.) These 

actions either commenced the arbitration or demonstrates Broadsheet (IOM)’s intention of doing 

so. Nearly one year later, Broadsheet (IOM) has yet to receive any response from the 

Government to its 28 September 2010 correspondence and the arbitrator has not yet been 

mutually agreed; and thus, the arbitration tribunal is not yet functioning. 

Separately, Broadsheet (IOM) is also invoking the pre-filing consultation procedures for 

a parallel contemplated investment arbitral claim under the U.K.-Pakistan BIT. 

* * * 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 32
16

Upon information and belief, Petitioners recently learned that Mr. James reportedly died 

on or about 7 May 2011 in Paris, France. Therefore, Broadsheet (IOM) submits this Petition 

against the Estate, his widow Susan M. James, Steeplechase, Broadsheet (Colorado), Sovereign, 

and Broadsheet (IOM)’s attorney, Douglas M. Tisdale, Sr., Esq., primarily to obtain documents 

relating to (a) the official records of Broadsheet (IOM); (b) the formation, execution, 

implementation and purported termination of the Agreement between Broadsheet (IOM) and the 

Government, (c) the purported assignment of the Agreement to one or more of his various shell 

companies, and (d) Mr. James’ negotiation, execution and implementation of the sham 

Settlement Agreement on behalf of his various shell companies, including the distribution of 

proceeds from the sham settlement. 

III. SECTION 1782 ENTITLES BROADSHEET TO TAKE DISCOVERY FROM 

RESPONDENTS THAT IS CRITICAL TO BOTH THE NOTICED 

ARBITRATION BEFORE THE CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF ARBITRATORS 

AND THE CONTEMPLATED BIT ARBITRATION 

“Section 1782(a) provides that a district court may order a resident of the district ‘to give 

his testimony or statement or to produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a 

foreign or international tribunal.’” Philips v. Beierwaltes, 466 F.3d 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 2006) 

(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a)). Petitions under Section 1782 are made by application to the 

Court, and discovery under Section 1782 is liberal. See In re Letter of Request from Supreme 

Court of Hong Kong, 138 F.R.D. 27, 32 n.6 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); Fleischmann v. McDonald’s 

Corp., 466 F. Supp. 2d 1020,1029 (N.D. Ill. 2006). Section 1782 requires only a minimal 

showing to authorize discovery, namely, that (1) the target of discovery resides or “is found” in 

the district where the petition has been filed; (2) the discovery sought is for use in a proceeding 

before a foreign or international tribunal; and (3) the petitioner, here Broadsheet (IOM), is an 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 32
17

“interested person.” See, e.g., Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 249, 

254-56 (2004). 

The statutory requirements for discovery under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 are met here. First, 

publicly-available information confirms that Mr. James’ surviving widow (and the individuals 

and entities associated with Mr. James and his Estate from whom Petitioners seeks discovery) 

reside or are found within this District, as chiefly demonstrated by several entities having their 

address—and their registered entities’ addresses—at Mr. James’ home in Englewood. (Exh. P 

(Colorado Corporate Record Entry for Steeplechase); Exh. Q (Colorado Corporate Record Entry 

for Broadsheet LLC (Colorado)); Exh. R (Colorado Corporate Record Entry for Sovereign); Exh. 

S (Colorado Attorney Record for Douglas M. Tisdale, Sr.), Pepper Decl.) 

Second, the discovery Broadsheet (IOM) seeks is for use in the arbitration noticed under 

the Rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators on 23 October 2009, 21 July 2010, and 28 

September 2010. This arbitration qualifies as a foreign proceeding for purposes of Section 1782. 

See, e.g., In re Roz Trading Ltd., 469 F. Supp. 2d 1221, 1227 (N.D. Ga. 2006) (“[W]here a body 

makes adjudicative decisions responsive to a complaint and reviewable in court, it falls within 

the widely accepted definition of ‘tribunal,’ the reasoning of Intel, and the scope of § 1782(a), 

regardless of whether the body is governmental or private.”); In re Application of Hallmark 

Capital Corp., 534 F. Supp. 2d 951, 957 (D. Minn. 2007) (“[T]he assistance permissible under 

Section 1782 may extend to private arbitration bodies.”). 

In addition, Broadsheet (IOM)’s contemplated claim under the U.K.-Pakistan BIT that 

will be the subject of consultations with the Government also independently satisfies the 

requirement that discovery sought through Section 1782 be intended for use in a foreign 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 32
18

proceeding. See Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 247 (holding, in part that, following the 1964 

amendment of section 1782, and Congress deleting the word “pending,” that the “proceeding” 

for which discovery is sought under § 1782(a) must be in reasonable contemplation, but need not 

be “pending” or “imminent”); In re Winning (HK) Shipping Co., No. 09-22659-MC, 2010 WL 

1796579, *4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 30, 2010) (noting that “there is no requirement that the foreign 

proceeding be ‘pending’ or even ‘imminent’ as long as the proceeding is ‘within reasonable 

contemplation’”). 

Third, as the legitimate “Broadsheet” entity registered in the Isle of Man and the only 

entity duly authorized by the liquidator to pursue the claims against the Government, and as one 

of the claimants in the noticed Chartered Institute arbitration and would-be claimant in the 

contemplated U.K.-Pakistan BIT Proceeding, Broadsheet (IOM) is an “interested person” under 

Section 1782. In re Merck & Co., 197 F.R.D. 267, 270 (M.D.N.C. 2000) (finding that 

“interested persons” include parties to international proceedings). 

There is thus no question that this Petition meets the statutory requirements for discovery 

under Section 1782, and this Court has discretion to grant the discovery requested. Courts 

“exercise their discretion under § 1782 in light of the twin aims of the statute: providing efficient 

means of assistance to participants in international litigation in our federal courts and 

encouraging foreign countries by example to provide similar means of assistance to our courts.” 

In re Schottdorf, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94161, *13 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006) (citations and 

quotations omitted). If the information sought is relevant, the presumption under Section 1782 is 

in favor of discovery. In re Bayer AG, 146 F.3d 188, 195-96 (3d Cir. 1998) (“[R]elevant 

evidence is presumptively discoverable under § 1782[.]”). 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 32
19

* * * 

Beyond relevance, the United States Supreme Court has further directed district courts to 

consider four factors in exercising their discretion to grant a Section 1782 petition: (1) whether 

the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in the foreign proceeding; (2) the 

receptivity of the foreign tribunal to federal-court assistance; (3) whether the request conceals an 

attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions; and (4) whether the request is unduly 

intrusive or burdensome. See Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 264-65. As detailed below, each 

discretionary factor weighs in favor of granting the requested discovery. 

A. The Discovery Sought Is Relevant To and Necessary For The Foreign Arbitration 

and Well Within The Scope of The Federal Rules 

The discovery sought here plainly falls within the scope of Section 1782. Under Section 

1782, discovery may be as broad and liberal as the Federal Rules allow. See Fleischmann, 466 

F. Supp. 2d at 1029; In re 28 U.S.C. § 1782, 249 F.RD. 96, 106 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). In fact, 

discovery can be granted under Section 1782 even when it would extend beyond that which is 

allowed under the Federal Rules. Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 263; In re Clerici, 481 F.3d 1324, 

1333 n.12 (11th Cir. 2007). Because the Government and Mr. James purported to enter into a 

settlement of claims that only Broadsheet (IOM) was rightfully authorized to settle, Broadsheet 

(IOM) believes that Mr. James necessarily had within his possession documents that would help 

Broadsheet (IOM) prove its good-faith performance under the Agreement and disprove the 

Government’s cited bases for its breaches and purported termination thereof. Broadsheet (IOM) 

thus has a critical need for the documents that Mr. James used to extract his sham settlement in 

order to understand the reasons for the Government agreeing to settle with Mr. James, as well as 

to comprehend the full extent of Mr. James’ dishonest conduct. Mr. James and the Respondents, 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 32
20

especially Mr. Tisdale, also retained portions of the official records of Broadsheet (IOM), which 

the company now wants to retrieve. 

Notably, there is strong indicia that the three corporate Respondents named—

Steeplechase, Broadsheet (Colorado), and Sovereign—are corporate alter ego or “shell” entities 

over which Mr. James exercised complete control and domination. In fact, Colorado corporate 

records reflect that all three companies had their principal street address at Mr. James’ home 

prior to his death, 4732 S. Elizabeth Court, Englewood, Colorado. In addition, all three entities 

had interlocking registered agents: the registered agent for Steeplechase and Broadsheet 

(Colorado) is listed as being Sovereign; and the registered agent for Sovereign is listed as being 

Steeplechase, all with addresses listed as 4732 S. Elizabeth Court. Broadsheet (Colorado) was 

formed on May 21, 2007—long after the Government purportedly terminated the Agreement—

and its status was listed as “delinquent” since November 1, 2009. Because all three corporate 

Respondents were under the complete dominion of Mr. James, and all had some involvement in 

the subterfuge that pervaded the May 2008 sham settlement, it is necessary that the requested 

subpoenas are issued against all of them. 

In addition, the role of Mr. Tisdale, as an attorney closely assisting Broadsheet (IOM) in 

its business activities throughout performance of the Agreement makes clear that he has no basis 

to withhold documents relating to the Agreement or Broadsheet (IOM), especially where—as 

here—the Petitioner is his former client, Broadsheet (IOM). Mr. Tisdale acted in a confidential 

capacity for Broadsheet (IOM) when he acted to trace and pursue assets of Targets. Mr. 

Tisdale’s role was not as a personal counselor for Mr. James. Indeed, Mr. Tisdale’s duty is to 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 32
21

Broadsheet (IOM), and any personal allegiances he may harbor for Mr. James are irrelevant as to 

whether he must release all of Broadsheet (IOM)’s official corporate records. 

Although Broadsheet (IOM) already possesses substantial documentation of its claims 

against the Government, discovery is needed from the Respondents to retrieve the official 

records of Broadsheet (IOM) and to help prove the merits of Broadsheet (IOM)’s arbitral claims. 

Furthermore, there is a significant risk that the Estate will dispose of documents bearing on the 

Agreement, the sham Settlement Agreement with the Government, and—perhaps most 

importantly—documents showing the asset-recovery work that Broadsheet (IOM) undertook 

pursuant to Agreement. There can be no doubt that if the noticed arbitration or contemplated 

BIT arbitration were instead a lawsuit commenced within a U.S. federal district court, the 

Federal Rules would permit this discovery. 

In addition, any documents that would tend to show that the Government colluded with 

Mr. James to pay any of his sham entities a settlement (that was a fraction of the claimed 

arbitration award sought) or approve a fraudulent assignment of rights under the Agreement from 

Broadsheet (IOM) to one of these alter egos of Mr. James would serve to bolster Broadsheet 

(IOM)’s arguments that the Government acted in bad faith and likely would materially support 

enhanced damages against the Government. Such documents could only be found within the 

possession, custody or control of the Respondents and their associated entities and agents, as Mr. 

James kept secret both the May 2008 sham settlement and January 2005 purported assignment. 

Without such documents, Broadsheet (IOM) may have no way of determining if bad-faith 

permeated the Government’s side of the sham settlement, or if its involvement was merely 

negligent in failing to ascertain the identity of its counterparty. For that reason, the discovery 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 32
22

sought is absolutely essential to the foreign arbitration and is well within the scope of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure. 

B. Respondents Are Not Participants in the Foreign Noticed Arbitration and Would 

Not Be Participants in the Contemplated BIT Arbitration 

The Estate, Steeplechase, Broadsheet (Colorado), Sovereign, and Douglas M. Tisdale, 

Sr., Esq., are not parties to the noticed foreign arbitration, and would not be parties to the 

contemplated foreign BIT arbitration, as these claims seek to recover under the arbitration 

provision of the Agreement, Clause 7.1, and under the U.K.-Pakistan BIT, respectively. 

Moreover, these entities and persons reside in the District of Colorado, outside the jurisdiction of 

either arbitral tribunal. Thus, this is not a situation where “(a) foreign tribunal has jurisdiction 

over those appearing before it, and can itself order them to produce evidence.” Intel Corp., 542 

U.S. at 264. 

C. Bilateral Investment Treaty Arbitral Panels and Private Arbitrators Historically 

Have Been Receptive To Federal Court Assistance Under Section 1782 

The use of Section 1782 in support of foreign-sited arbitrations is well-accepted. In re 

Oxus Gold PLC, No. MISC 06-82-GEB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24061 (D.N.J. Apr. 2, 2007) 

(Section 1782 applies to UNCITRAL arbitrations); Ukrnafta v. Carpatsky Petroleum Corp., No. 

3:09 MC 265 (JBA), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109492 (D. Conn. Aug. 27, 2009) (same). In In re 

Winning (HK) Shipping Co., the district court found that to the extent that the arbitration forum 

at issue was subject to Arbitration Act 1996 (of England), Winning was proceeding before a 

“foreign tribunal” and is entitled to seek assistance from the court under Section 1782. No. 09-

mc-22659, 2010 WL 1796579, *29. The Winning court applied the discretionary factors and 

explained that “there has been no evidence or case law submitted that indicates that the foreign 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 32
23

government or court would be unreceptive to United States federal-court judicial assistance.” Id.

at *30. The district court concluded “that the factors weigh in favor of providing assistance to 

Winning in this matter” and allowed Winning to obtain the discovery that it sought. Id. at *29. 

Much like in Winning, here, nothing suggests that the arbitration tribunal to be 

established under the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Rules would not be receptive to 

assistance of this Court under Section 1782, as it is a foreign arbitral tribunal with its situs in 

Dublin, Ireland that cannot otherwise order the production of documents from non-parties 

needed for a full adjudication. See In re Roz Trading Ltd., 469 F. Supp. 2d at 1229 (The court 

explained that because the Vienna International Arbitral Centre as an international body “must 

rely on the aid of courts beyond its jurisdiction-such as United States District Courts acting 

pursuant to § 1782(a)-to enforce its demands and to aid its inquiries, both within and without 

Austria” it would be “receptive to aid from courts such as [the district court in Georgia].”). 

However, even if the arbitration tribunal were to indicate that it would not allow the 

introduction of the evidence sought by this Petition, it would not be determinative and the 

discovery should nonetheless be permitted. See Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 265 (holding that a 1782 

petition could be granted despite the fact that “[t]he European Commission (hearing the 

underlying matter) has stated in amicus curiae briefs to this Court that it does not need or want 

the District Court’s assistance”); In re Roz Trading Ltd., 2007 WL 120844 at *2 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 

11, 2007) (“The parties do not contend that the (foreign tribunal) has a policy against accepting 

the aid of U.S. courts. It is thus proper for this Court to grant a § 1782 request, even if the 

specific panel deciding the underlying dispute would not order similar discovery or ultimately 

decides not to accept the specific discovery ordered by this Court.”); In re Application of 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 32
24

Imanagement Servs. Ltd., No. 05-2311, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8876, at *8 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 

2006) (“[I]t is sufficient that the applicant intend to offer the evidence to a foreign court. 

Whether the foreign court will ultimately accept the evidence is beyond th[e] [United States] 

Court’s ability to determine.”). 

D. This Petition Is An Attempt To Obtain Probative and Relevant Evidence For 

Foreign Proceedings and In No Way Circumvents Foreign Proof-Gathering 

Restrictions 

Precisely because Broadsheet (IOM) is seeking good faith discovery that may not be 

available in the foreign arbitration, the Court should grant Broadsheet (IOM)’s application to 

issue subpoenas under Section 1782. Section 1782 does not require that the information sought 

be discoverable under the procedures of the foreign tribunal. Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 261 (“A 

foreign nation may limit discovery within its domain for reasons peculiar to its own legal 

practices, culture, or traditions-reasons that do not necessarily signal objection to aid from 

United States federal courts.”). Rather, in determining whether a petition is an effort to 

circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions, the consideration for a district court is whether 

the discovery is being sought in bad faith. Minatec Fin. S.A.R.L. v. SI Group Inc., No. 08-cv269, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63802, *26 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2008) (“The primary issue for us is 

whether [Petitioner] is pursuing this discovery in bad faith.”). As detailed above, Broadsheet 

(IOM)’s request for discovery from the Estate and related persons and entities is a good faith 

effort to obtain probative evidence. Broadsheet (IOM) is unaware of any restrictions in either the 

Arbitration Rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators or the contemplated BIT arbitration 

that would prohibit the discovery it seeks. Moreover, any relevant evidence developed could be 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 32
25

used in both proceedings as part of the evidence to be presented, for direct examination, or in the 

cross examination of witnesses. 

E. The Discovery Requested By This Petition Is Appropriately Focused 

The discovery sought by this Petition focuses primarily on the circumstances surrounding 

the negotiation, formation, execution, performance, assignment, termination, and breaches of the 

Agreement between the Government and Broadsheet (IOM), and, secondarily, upon the sham 

Settlement Agreement between the Government and one or more of Mr. James’ corporate alter 

ego shell entities, as well as any direct or indirect communications or payments involving Mr. 

James or his associated entities or persons and the Government. As set forth above, the 

requested discovery is well within the scope permitted by U.S. courts. In addition, “[c]onsistent 

with the statute’s modest prima facie elements and Congress’s goal of providing equitable and 

efficacious discovery procedures, district courts should treat relevant discovery materials sought 

pursuant to § 1782 as discoverable unless the party opposing the application can demonstrate 

facts sufficient to justify the denial of the application.” In re Bayer AG, 146 F.3d at 195. In the 

unlikely event that Broadsheet (IOM)’s discovery into Mr. James’ communications could be 

considered intrusive, any undue intrusion can be mitigated by the Court further tailoring the 

discovery sought. See Metallgesellschaft AG v. Hodapp, 121 F.3d 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1997) (“[I]t is 

far preferable for a district court to reconcile whatever misgivings it may have . . . by issuing a 

closely tailored discovery order rather than by simply denying relief outright.”). 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 32
26

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Broadsheet (IOM) respectfully requests that the Court enter an 

Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 granting it leave to serve the Estate, Steeplechase, 

Broadsheet (Colorado), Sovereign, and Douglas M. Tisdale, Sr., Esq. with subpoenas for the 

production of documents in the forms annexed to the Petition. 

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of September, 2011. 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 32
27

By: /s/ James K. Lewis 

James K. Lewis, Esq. 

PATTON BOGGS LLP 

1801 California Street, Suite 4900 

Denver, CO 80202 

Phone: (303) 830-1776 

Fax: (303) 894-9239 

E-mail: JLewis@pattonboggs.com 

Attorneys for Petitioner

Of counsel: 

James E. Tyrrell, Jr., Esq. 

Lisa Ann T. Ruggiero, Esq. 

Patrick C. Gilmartin, Esq. 

PATTON BOGGS LLP 

The Legal Center 

One Riverfront Plaza, 6th Floor 

Newark, NJ 07102 

Phone: (973) 848-5660 

Fax: (973) 848-5601 

E-mail: JTyrrell@pattonboggs.com 

E-mail: LRuggiero@pattonboggs.com 

Kenneth B. Reisenfeld, Esq. 

PATTON BOGGS LLP 

2550 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Phone: (202) 457-6442 

Fax: (202) 457-6315 

E-mail: KReisenfeld@pattonboggs.com 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 32
28

EXHIBIT LIST 

 

EXHIBIT 

REFERENCE 

DESCRIPTION 

A Agreement between the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan through 

the Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, and Broadsheet LLC (IOM), 

entered into on 20 June 2000 

B Affidavit of Farouk Adam Khan, 22 Aug. 2010 

C Termination Letter from Kendall Freeman on Behalf of the Government of 

Pakistan and NAB, 28 Oct. 2003 

D Order Placing Company into Liquidation and Appointing Provisional 

Liquidator, 7 Mar. 2005 

E Letter of Ahmer Bilal Soofi to William F. Pepper, 30 Mar. 2007 

F Order Releasing Liquidator and Dissolving Company, 2 Apr. 2007 

G Records of Payment of Sham Settlement Amount Between Government of 

Pakistan and Mr. James, 20 May 2008; 29 Sept. 2008 

H Sham Settlement Agreement, 20 May 2008 

I Affidavit of E. Jerry James in Support of Purported Settlement Agreement, 20 

May 2008 

J Articles of Organisation of Broadsheet LLC, 12 May 2000 

K Order Voiding Dissolution, 27 Nov. 2009 

L Second Notice to Arbitrate, 23 Oct. 2009 

M Letter of Baker Botts LLP to Ahmer Bilal Soofi, 21 July 2010 

N Letter of Muhammad Ashfaq Ashraf to Baker Botts LLP, 28 July 2010 

O Letter of Baker Botts LLP to NAB and Ahmer Bilal Soofi, 28 Sept. 2010 

P Colorado Corporate Record Entry for Steeplechase 

Q Colorado Corporate Record Entry for Broadsheet LLC (Colorado) 

R Colorado Corporate Record Entry for Sovereign 

S Colorado Attorney Record for Douglas M. Tisdale, Sr., Esq. 

T Letter of R. Harper to W.F. Pepper, 15 July 2011 

Case 1:11-cv-02436-PAB-KMT Document 3 Filed 09/15/11 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 32