Subject: Base Metals v. OJSC
From: [email-masked]
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 10:34:00 -0700 (PDT)

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL:  ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNICATION, ATTORNEY WORK 
PRODUCT

Please be advised that our attorneys have filed a motion for leave to file a 
supplemental motion on behalf of MG Metals regarding Base Metals' belated 
attempt to serve OJSC in the underlying lawsuit.  We make two arguments in 
the underlying substantive motion supporting the legal conclusion that Base 
Metal's attempt was invalid:  (a), the service was mailed by the plaintiffs, 
rather than by the Court, the latter of which is required by the federal 
rules of civil procedure, and (b), Base Metal failed to satisfy its burden 
under the federal rules of showing that Russian law did not preclude service 
in this manner.

We are hammering on this point because under applicable Maryland procedure, a 
plaintiff such as Base Metals must serve the underlying lawsuit within 60 
days of the attachment of a third-parties' goods.  Unfortunately, no Maryland 
legal authority has thus far addressed what happens when someone like Base 
Metals fails to do so, but we will of course argue the common-sense 
proposition:  that Base Metals' failure to comply with this 60-day period is 
lethal to its attempt to keep the escrow account open.

I will keep you advised.

Britt