US Court Rules in Favor of John K. Baldwin and Bridge Capital Against the Government of Laos noting that its claims were based on little more than unsupported allegations of wrongdoing� and finding that it was �essentially motivated by bad faith.�
Mariana Island resident John K. Baldwin said, �I am pleased by the ruling issued yesterday in which the Court characterized the actions of the Lao Government as 'harassment' and 'a fishing expedition.' The Court�s ruling firmly rejected the Lao Government�s request on all grounds and this shows the world that this frivolous case against me and my company are without merit.�
The Court questioned the Lao Government�s intent, noting that its claims were based on �little more than unsupported allegations of wrongdoing� and finding that it was �essentially motivated by bad faith.�
Among the favorable decisions for Bridge and Baldwin, the Court questioned whether the Lao Government genuinely believed any of the claims it was raising, stating that, �It appears that Lao Government�s true intent is not to ... support criminal ... prosecution, but rather to use the [purported] criminal investigation to obtain discovery for the [civil dispute] proceedings� further noting that the request was �more of a fishing expedition than a legitimate use of [the law].�
Further questioning the Lao Government�s motives, the Court noted that the Lao Government already �gave up its criminal investigation� and that it failed to initiate any prosecutorial action for years only applying �for discovery in aid of its [purported] criminal investigation after initiating the [civil dispute] ...� According to the Court, that delay further undermined the Lao Government�s credibility and, �raise[d] doubts about the independence and good faith of that investigation� - a suspicion shared by a previous international arbitration tribunal.
Characterizing the Lao Government�s allegations against Bridge Capital and John K. Baldwin as flimsy pretexts, the Court ultimately found that the Lao Government�s stated intent was merely a ruse. Baldwin added: �Unfortunately, these types of unscrupulous tactics are nothing new for the Lao Government.� The Lao Government (a totalitarian communist regime where, according to Freedom House, one of the preeminent authorities on democracy and freedom, says �the rule of law...is highly compromised)� was represented by Eric H. Cottrell of the North Carolina law firm Parker Poe, John D. Branson formerly of Parker Poe, and now of Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP, and William Fitzgerald, Lao�s local counsel. According to the United States Department of State, Laos employs �[o]fficials [who] often engage in corrupt practices with impunity.� Threatening criminal prosecution without evidence of wrongdoing is just another tool employed by a repressive state renowned for �crush[ing] anything deemed to be a threat to its monopoly on power� and regulating �virtually every facet of life.�
�Scholars such as Martin Stuart-Fox have written articles demonstrating that the Lao Government wields allegations of criminal behavior as an effective device to intimidate or silence detractors,� said Deborah Deitsch-Perez, counsel for Bridge and Baldwin in this matter.
As Bridge Capital�s briefing to the Court shows, �it is precisely because the businesses that Mr. Baldwin ran in Laos would not pay bribes that [the Lao government] trumped up false charges and abused U.S. law in an attempt to coerce Mr. Baldwin into abandoning efforts to require [the Lao government] to live up to its commitments.�
