American Statement Of Claim First Version

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA Civil Action No.

LIFECHOICE INTERNATIONAL INC., ROBERT KAP, DIMITAR HRISTOV, BORISLAV MARINOV, RADKA PETROVA, And LIFECHOICE BANQ1 CORPORATION

On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Complaint Class Action

Plaintiffs, v. THE NATIONAL SPECIALIZED INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF BULGARIA, THE MAIN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF BULGARIA And THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA Represented by The HONOURABLE MURAVEI RADEV

Jury Trial Demanded

Minister of Finance In his official capacity For THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA Defendants STATEMENT OF CLAIM 1.

This is a civil action brought for monetary relief under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 USC, Sections 1605 (a)(2)(3) and (a)(5), arising from pecuniary loss and injury suffered upon a breach of contract(s) having to be performed and direct interference with a commercial activity carried on within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States but rendered impossible by the breach(es) alleged and tortious acts claimed, arising from, inter alia, the willfully illicit non-discretionary and intentionally improper collection and seizure of private property, information and records; the withholding of private and proprietary data; unconsented disclosures to the Main Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, its members and individuals employed therein about confidential and proprietary property, information and records unlawfully collected by the National Specialized Investigative Service concerning the Plaintiffs and all other members of the Class hereinafter described; and on information and belief the exploitation of the property and records as well as dissemination and misrepresentation of the 1

information by officials of the Main Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, its members and individuals employed therein, including officials, agencies or instrumentalities of Government. Jurisdiction And Venue 2.

This Court has original jurisdiction in personam according to 28 USC Section 1330 (a) over Counts I, II and III of this action pursuant to 28 USC Section 1605(a). This Court has jurisdiction over Counts IV and V pursuant to 28 USC Section 1367(a), in that are so related to claims within the original jurisdiction of the district court that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution.

3.

Venue is proper in this district as to Counts I, II and III pursuant to the provisions of 28 USC Section 1391(f)(1)(3), Counts IV and V pursuant to 28 USC Section 1391(d) and 28 USC Section 1391(a).

4.

The Plaintiff LifeChoice BANQ1 Corporation (BANQ1) is an international business corporation registered under the Government of Antigua and Barbuda and is a party to and has a proprietary interest in commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere including those certain contracts breached, property and information collected, suffering damages thereby.

5.

The Plaintiff LifeChoice International Inc. is an international business corporation registered under the Government of Antigua and Barbuda and is a party to and has a proprietary interest in commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere including those certain contracts breached, property and information collected, suffering damages thereby.

6.

The Plaintiff Robert Kap resident of 333 Tonti Street, South Bend, Indiana, 46617 USA. He is a party to and has a proprietary interest in commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere including those certain contracts breached, property and information collected, suffering damages thereby. .

7.

The Plaintiff Dimitar Borisov Hristov is a citizen of the Republic of Bulgaria, resident of 4, "Strahil Voivoda" St., 1124, Sofia, Bulgaria. He is a party to and has a proprietary interest in commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere including those certain contracts breached, property and information collected, suffering damages thereby. .

8.

The Plaintiff Borislav Tomov Marinov is a citizen of the Republic of Bulgaria, resident of j.k. "Emil Markov", "V. Dimitrov" St. bl. 246, entr. A, apt. 7, 1404, Sofia, Bulgaria. He is a party to and has a proprietary interest in commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere including those certain contracts breached, property and information collected, suffering damages thereby. . 2

9.

The Plaintiff Radka Mineva Petrova "Zapaden Park", "Suhodolska-2" St., bl. 72, entr. B, floor 4, apt. 13, 1373, Sofia, Bulgaria. She is a party to and has a proprietary interest in commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere including those certain contracts breached, property and information collected, suffering damages thereby. .

10. The Defendant National Specialized Investigative Service ("NIS") is an agency of the Judicial Branch of the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, located at 42, "G.M.Dimitrov" St., 1113, Sofia, Bulgaria, maintaining possession of the property, records and proprietary information pertaining to the Plaintiffs. 11. The Defendant Main Public Prosecutor’s Office ("MPPO") is an agency of the Judicial Branch of the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria, located at 2, "Vitosha" Blvd., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria, maintaining possession of the property, records and proprietary information pertaining to the Plaintiffs. 12. The Defendant Government of the Republic of Bulgaria is represented by the Honorable Minister of Finance Mr. Muravei Radev in his official capacity, located at 102, "Rakovski" St., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria. 13. Defendant Mario Stoyanov (hereinafter “Stoyanov”) is a prosecutor at the Supreme Cassation prosecutor's Office at 2, “Vitosha” Blvd., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria. 14. Defendant Emilia Mitkova (hereinafter “Mitkova”) is a trial judge at the Sofia City Court, Criminal College, 11th staff, 2, “Vitosha” Blvd., 1000, Sofia, Bulgaria. Class Action Allegations. 15. This action is brought by Plaintiffs as a Class action on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated pursuant to and relying upon the provisions of 23 (a) and 23 (b) (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for damages including costs and attorneys fees. The Class so represented by the Plaintiffs in this action of which Plaintiffs are themselves members, are all persons consisting of residents of the United States, Canada, Republic of Bulgaria and elsewhere who purchased or otherwise had inured to them a beneficial interest in Depositary Securities (the "Securities") acquired by Plaintiffs during the Class period of 31 November 1993 to 31 December 1995 having applied for withdrawal or conversion of the securities to common shares or equity in property.. 16. The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number of class members is unknown to Plaintiffs as this time, it can be ascertained through appropriate discovery. Plaintiffs believe that there are thousands of members in the Class. As of April 1999 there were reported 3,257 persons, not including the Plaintiffs or residents outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of Bulgaria, Class members represent 100,000,000 million bearer depositary securities last recorded to be issued and outstanding. 17. Plaintiffs right to the said Securities is evidenced in all instances by possession of a 3

Depositary Receipt contract or certificate verifiable by its issuer, BANQ1, the depositary, entitling each Class member a contractual financial interest in, inter alia, those commercial activities in the United States alleged to be interfered with; certain contracts alleged as having been breached; certain property and other assets alleged as unlawfully exploited; proprietary and confidential information as collected and unlawfully disseminated, Plaintiffs, jointly and severally, damaged thereby. 18. Plaintiffs Securities were actively traded over-the-counter during the Class period and their market managed through the transfer agent, LifeChoice International - AD (LCIAD) - the fiduciary of Plaintiff BANQ1 and repository of all certificates, documents, data and confidential information relating to the Plaintiffs, the commercial activities and assets the subject of this lawsuit. 19.

Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of all members of the Class as all members of the Class are similarly effected by Defendants' wrongful conduct and the breaches of contract and law, as complained of. There are common questions of law and fact in the action that relate to and affect the rights of each member of the Class and the relief sought is common to the entire Class. Namely, the Plaintiffs depend on a showing of the acts and omissions of Defendants giving rise to the right(s) of Plaintiffs to the relief sought herein as arises from breaches of contract arising from an improper and illicit collection, then withholding of private property, information, records and proprietary data by individuals employed in the service of the Defendant Government, having acted with neither Plaintiffs consent or upon any legal occasion or discretionary right when, knowingly facilitating on account of said acts the willful interference with Plaintiffs' commercial activities in USA and elsewhere by exploitation and destruction of property and the unconsented disclosure and dissemination to other agencies or instrumentalities of confidential and proprietary information, including certain individual members of Defendant Government and others employed therein, said breaches and acts thus giving rise to the breach(es) alleged and damages claimed herein, including costs and attorneys' fees.

20. There is no conflict as between any individual named Plaintiff and other members of the Class with respect to this action or with respect to the claims for relief herein set forth. The named Plaintiffs are representative parties for the Class and are able to and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. 21. This action is properly maintained as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) inasmuch as the questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Upon information and belief the actions taken by Defendants, jointly and severally, in scienter with other agencies or instrumentalities of Government, were the same with respect to each Plaintiff; separate trials to prove liability issues common to the Class would be a waste of judicial resources. Furthermore, it is desirable to concentrate such litigation within the Court's District. Moreover the expenses of litigation would be likely to discourage the initiation of individual lawsuits concerning the actions at issue. Upon information and belief, there is as yet no other litigation involving the same controversy.

4

Facts 22. Plaintiffs are each party to an unsponsored depositary facility granting them contractual rights to a specified value of depositary securities setout in a depositary receipt contract and alternatively indicated upon the face of a certificate upon whose acquisition and possession Plaintiffs became party to an offering and deposit agreement having been fully incorporated by reference in the contract or certificate as representing the contractual relationship between their holder, the depositary and the Plaintiffs, as well as assignees of the securities. 23. Plaintiffs undertook to become parties to the depositary facility primarily upon their reliance on Defendant Government's officials and agencies representations as to certain commercial rights and activities as yet unregulated or encumbered by national legislation and other commercial rights or options as acquired under contract from Defendant Government instrumentalities by those private corporations whose securities, assets or derivates thereof were representative of the depositary securities Plaintiffs had acquired an interest in during the Class period. 24. Plaintiffs' commercial activity and investment in the United States and elsewhere relied heavily upon representations and contracts with Defendant Government agencies or instrumentalities as to, inter alia, a) assignments of proprietary products for the treatment of HIV/AIDS; proprietary research data for the treatment of cancer; access to manufacturing and research facilities; technical, scientific and administrative support in FDA filings; b) options and rights granted to certain lands and buildings for installation of processing equipment to treat and refine waste oil products into fuel and thermoelectric energy; c) the right of free and unrestricted movement of private corporate securities; repatriation by foreign investors or corporations, of profits realized as cash or in the form of corporate securities; d) free and unrestricted movement of foreign origin or destined goods or services and protection under law from illicit seizure, exploitation or misappropriation of private property by agencies or instrumentalities of the Defendant Government. 25. The result of these representations and contracts was that Plaintiffs invested heavily and entered into joint commercial activities in the United States, Canada and elsewhere but administered these activities from within the territorial jurisdiction of the Defendants and maintained, inter alia, inventories; equipment; manufacturing capacity; research and development; files; records; data; confidential and proprietary information each jointly and severally indispensable and essential to Plaintiffs commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere. 26. One of the largest contracts upon which Plaintiffs revenues were dependent involved instrumentalities of the Defendant Government upon which Plaintiffs relied was to supply LifeChoice Inc. and HIV/AIDS patients in the United States and Canada with, inter alia, a proprietary and patented immunotherapy clinical drug "Factor - R" and derivatives thereof to control and limit onset of AIDS related secondary infections; development of hybrid synergetic compounds composed of generic clinic drugs combining proprietary substances 5

anticipated to effectively treat and control a number of cancers, some associated with the onset of AIDS. The Rapid approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration was anticipated by Plaintiffs on account of representations of Defendant Government instrumentalities, the clinical work completed or underway in their possession. 27. Another contract upon which Plaintiffs relied involved instrumentalities of the Defendant Government delivering land, buildings and other facilities contracted for by LifeChoice S.A., a Republic of Greece corporation through the fiduciary of KANAMECO II A.D., a Republic of Bulgaria corporation, the lease operator manager for two microrefining and waste oil treatment units and related facilities as delivered to Tzarimir, Bulgaria, by Green Oasis Environmental Inc., a South Carolina State corporation, said units constituting a part of 15 units so ordered together with manufacturing and technological exploitation rights for the Republic of Bulgaria and elsewhere in the Balkans. 28. On or about April 1995 Plaintiffs learned that an agency of Defendant Government, the Ministry of Finance intended to and in fact later would assess a Value Added Tax ("VAT") on the face value of Plaintiffs depositary securities, that agency not recognizing foreign depositary receipts as representative of corporate securities, thereby refusing to exempt Plaintiffs from VAT on transactions, including transfers of the representative contracts or certificates [see § 14 above]. 29. Throughout the Class period Plaintiffs' personal records and financial data were maintained by and held in reposit with the depositary transfer agent, LifeChoice International - AD ("LCIAD) at their offices in Sofia and Plovdiv, Republic of Bulgaria, these files concerning each individual Plaintiff were a part of the property of each Plaintiff and confidential record keeping system of the depositary facility. The information concerning Plaintiffs contained in depositary files was available only to a limited number of authorized individuals within the transfer agent, LCIAD, and was not and should not have been available to any individual or agency outside the transfer agent without the prior written consent or knowledge of a Plaintiff or any lawful justification embodied in any court order adjudicated against a Plaintiff, jointly or severally, sine qua non to the standards of international law. No such order existed. 30. On or about June, 1995 officials of the transfer agent, LCIAD refused a demand by instrumentalities of the Defendant Government to surrender to it the names, confidential personal records and financial data of each individual Plaintiff. 31. Beginning on or about July, 1995, Plaintiffs, to preserve the integrity and confidentiality of their investments, as setout herein, delivered their individual written consent and direction to the depositary transfer agent, LCIAD, to have their records and financial data, together with each Plaintiff's original contract or certificate surrendered into the care and fiduciary of the depositary custodian, the Law firm of McCandless, Morrison and Verdicchio, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada with instructions to have issued to them their pro-rata interest in the commercial activities represented by depositary securities, in either common shares or their like, equal to the accrued value of each contract or certificate representing the Securities as surrendered by the Plaintiff to the Custodian.

6

32.

Plaintiffs had delivered during the Class period their consent, direction and original contract or certificates, being securities in both bearer and named formats. Each contract on certificate was the private individual and distinct property of each Plaintiff, brought by him or her into the fiduciary of the Custodian through the facilities of the transfer agent, LCIAD.

33. On best information and belief, Defendants NIS, MPPO and the Government requested on or about 17 July, 1995 officials employed by them, without lawful cause, to seize Plaintiff's confidential files, thereby their property, for political purposes of public embarrassment of Plaintiffs' corporate activities and management, whereby with willful intent Defendants sought to damage the commercial activities in the United States of the Plaintiffs as well as interfere with deliveries of a HIV/AIDS proprietary clinical substance the property of 250 or more patients in the United States and elsewhere who were dependent thereupon; in so acting, individuals employed by Defendant Government sought to derive personal benefit. 34. On or about October 1995, Defendant NIS, acting in scienter with Defendant Government political appointees or individuals employed by them, proceeded to take, inter alia, private property; confidential personal records and financial data; proprietary product and market information and data; corporate and depositary documents; commercial inventories and equipment being either the immediate property of the Plaintiffs or property upon which Plaintiffs commercial activity in the United States and elsewhere relied or were wholly dependent. 35. Up to and including 31 December, 1998 Plaintiffs, immediately subsequent to each instance of the herein alleged as illicit collection, seizure and withholding of their private property did, as required by national law of the Republic of Bulgaria, plead to Defendant Mario Stoyanov as the responsible supervising official appointed and employed by Defendant Government to return or preserve and secure maintenance of property and data the subject of Defendants collection, pleading that it was, inter alia, taken and withheld in violation of national and international law; being exploited by employees or related third parties of Defendants; being damaged or otherwise diminished by abuse; destroyed; stolen; lost; sold and that that Plaintiffs right to the security, enjoyment and possession of their lawful property is violated by an illicit seizure and willful withholding of that property by Defendant Government agencies or instrumentalities, thereby inflicting upon Plaintiffs grievous financial loss and causing them to suffer additional loss in being unable to complete transactions and contracts which Plaintiffs are jointly or severally a party in interest, contained in § 37 below. Plaintiffs were unable to, on account thereof, inter alia, exercise property rights in the United States over corporate securities which they were to have acquired by succession; proceed with commercial activities to be carried out in the United States and elsewhere; perform acts in the United States essential to the success of their commercial activities; enforce agreements made with agencies or instrumentalities of the Defendant Government or private parties. 36. From 1 January 1999 to the present, Plaintiffs have, as required by national law, repeatedly pleaded to Defendant Emilia Mitkova, the supervising official appointed and employed by Defendant Government to replace Defendant Mario Stoyanov, that the Plaintiffs' property collected or seized by agencies or instrumentalities of Defendant Government should be 7

accounted for and returned to the Plaintiffs as lawful owners and repeated and re-alleged the claims and allegations contained in § 35 above. 37. As a direct result of Defendants willful and intentional illicit taking of Plaintiffs' property and later unlawful conduct of withholding said property, Defendants caused Plaintiffs money damages, suffering serious and substantial harm and adverse effects, including but not limited to the substantial and significant loss of realizable profit and opportunity from, inter alia, new clinical drugs and therapeutic technology for the treatment of HIV/AIDS and cancer; clinical research and development work halted; the manufacture, leasing and operation of waste oil treatment, micro-refining and thermoelectric facilities, the out-ofpocket expenses and loss of time necessarily incurred in investigating and responding to Defendants' unlawful conduct and unfairness. 38. As a proximate result of Defendants NIS, MPPO and Government willful, intentional collection and illicit seizure of Plaintiffs private property and confidential files, the improper maintenance and security thereof, certain confidential and proprietary data as contained therein was released without prior written consent or knowledge of Plaintiffs to other agencies or instrumentalities of Defendant Government and later misrepresented to the public and mass media by individuals in the employ of the Defendant Government, and named herein as individual Defendants and tortfeasors whereby causing Plaintiffs public embarrassment, loss of reputation, inconvenience, emotional distress and mental anguish, which as a consequence provided vicarious cause for the termination and ceasing of private and state contracts, together with commercial activities involving the Plaintiffs.

COUNT I Defendant NIS Violations Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act 39.

Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 35 inclusive.

40. Defendant NIS collected, seized and withheld the private property and personal records of the Plaintiffs together with confidential and proprietary data and other property in which Plaintiffs, as a Class, hold a financial interest. 41. In violation of 28 USC Section 1605(a)(3) and (a)(5), among other provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Defendant NIS did willfully and intentionally violate its national law and international conventions for security of property and person provided for, in NIS did willfully and intentionally violate its national law and international conventions for security of property and person provided for, inter alia, in Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 1, Protocol No 3 as amended by Protocol No 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and a fortiori incisively considered in the Constitution of the United States of America.

8

42. A violation of 28 USC Section 1605(a)(4) and (a)(5) among other provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Defendant NIS willfully and intentionally withheld documents and securities, the private property of Plaintiffs without lawful justification and known to Defendant as essential to each Plaintiff in acquiring his rights by succession to a pro-rata interest in property in the United States. 43. A violation of 28 USC Section 1605(a)(2) and (a)(5) among the other provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Defendant NIS unlawfully collected and refused to return proprietary documents, information and inventories essential to Plaintiffs commercial activities carried on in the United States, inter alia: a) the documents, information and proprietary clinical research data necessary to obtain US Food and Drug Administration approvals for Plaintiffs HIV/AIDS clinical drug, Factor-R, among others; b) the documents, information and proprietary installation and manufactures data necessary to complete installation of USA manufactured micro-refining and waste treatment equipment; c) inventories of the proprietary clinical drug Factor-R and other drugs essential to Plaintiffs' sponsored clinical trials and the health and welfare of 250 United States resident HIV/AIDS sufferers being treated as part of a clinical study conducted in the United States; d) all micro-refining equipment, plant facilities, buildings and accessory equipment essential to the completion and operation of the Plaintiffs waste oil treatment and oil processing micro-refining units; e) inventories of commercial goods and other products warehoused in the free trade zones of the Defendant Government custom services. 44. Defendant NIS willfully and intentionally failed to establish legal cause or appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards to insure the security of Plaintiffs' property and confidentiality of records, documents, data and proprietary information and to protect same against any anticipated threats or hazards to their security or integrity which would result in substantial financial harm, inconvenience, embarrassment or unfairness to individuals such as Plaintiffs. Defendants had no discretionary function as to whether or not to act in preserving and securing the properties in question. 45. As a result of Defendant NIS's willful and intentional tortious acts, the errors and omissions of individuals employed by it in the collection, seizure and withholding of Plaintiffs' property and files, as well as Defendant NIS's willful and intentional disclosure or misrepresentation of facts concerning Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere and Defendant NIS's failure to establish appropriate administrative, technical and physical safeguards to insure the security of Plaintiffs' property and confidentiality of their records and files, among other violations of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Plaintiffs suffered money damages, other serious and substantial harm to their commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere, adverse effects 9

including but not limited to the substantial and significant loss of realizable revenue and profits from their property and commercial activities in the United States and loss of future opportunities and profits thereupon, including but not limited to the out-of-pocket expenses and loss of time necessarily incurred in investigating and responding to Defendants' unlawful conduct, there is in addition the embarrassment, loss of reputation, emotional distress, mental anguish, inconvenience and unfairness. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a judgement against Defendant NIS for loss of property, future opportunity and non-pecuniary injury damages in excess of $ 1,200,000,000.00 plus pre-judgement interest, post-judgement interest, costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT II DEFENDANT MPPO VIOLATIONS FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT 46. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 42 inclusive. 47. Defendant MPPO acted in scienter with Defendant NIS in knowingly participating in effecting and maintaining the unlawful acts alleged herein. 48. The willful and intentional support or neglect by Defendant MPPO as to the tortious acts of abuse of official process of Defendant NSI and in failing to correct errors, omissions or misrepresentations of Defendant NIS, an agency of the Defendant MPPO, yet realizing at all material times that the property, files and other confidential materials collected or seized from Plaintiffs was neither relevant nor necessary to accomplish any lawful purpose required to be accomplished by statute and the acts of Defendant NIS directly having direct (?) affect on the lawful commercial activities of Plaintiffs in the United States and elsewhere, are therefore violations of 28 USC Sections 1605(a)(3) and 1605(a)(5) among other provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 49. As a result of Defendant MPPO's willful, intentional and unlawful participation in scienter with Defendant NIS, its maintenance or neglect of the tortious acts, errors and omissions of other Defendant in failing to secure or return the Plaintiffs lawful property, among other violations of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and international law, Plaintiffs suffered [at all material times that the property, files and other confidential materials collected or seized from Plaintiffs was neither relevant nor necessary to accomplish any lawful purpose required to be accomplished by statute and the acts of Defendant NIS directly having direct affect on the lawful commercial activities of Plaintiffs in the United States and elsewhere, are therefore violations of 28 USC Sections 1605(a)(3) and 1605(a)(5) among other provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. - (Mike, this doesn't fit here at all - M. I think the one I inserted is better )] money damages, other 10

serious and substantial harm to their commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere, adverse effects including but not limited to the substantial and significant loss of realizable revenue and profits from their property and commercial activities in the United States and loss of future opportunities and profits thereupon, including but not limited to the out-of-pocket expenses and loss of time necessarily incurred in investigating and responding to Defendants' unlawful conduct, there is in addition the embarrassment, loss of reputation, emotional distress, mental anguish, inconvenience and unfairness. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a judgement against Defendant NIS for loss of property, future opportunity and non-pecuniary injury damages in excess of $ 1,200,000,000.00 plus prejudgement interest, post-judgement interest, costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT III DEFENDANTS STOYANOV AND MITKOVA FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT 50. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 42 inclusive. 51. The Defendant Mario Stoyanov was at all material times supervising the conduct of Defendant NIS, Defendant required by law to maintain the security of property, confidentiality of information and files of the Plaintiffs and, if collection and seizure thereof was unlawful on account of the tortious acts, errors or omissions of other Defendants to return to Plaintiffs their property. 52. The Defendant Emilia Mitkova was. From 16 April 1998 at all material times supervising the conduct of Defendant NIS, Defendant required by law to maintain the security of property, confidentiality of information and files of the Plaintiffs and, if collection and seizure thereof was unlawful on account of the tortious acts, errors or omissions of other Defendants to return to Plaintiffs their property. 53. Defendants Stoyanov and Mitkova willfully, intentionally and unlawfully participated in scienter with other Defendants in maintaining or neglecting to correct the unlawful acts as alleged herein. 54. At all material times Defendant Stoyanov and Mitkova could have but did not or alternatively intentionally neglected to end the tortious abuses of process or to correct the errors, omissions or misrepresentations of other Defendants though realizing at all material times that the property, files and other confidential materials collected or seized from Plaintiffs was neither relevant nor necessary to accomplish any lawful purpose required to be accomplished by statute and the acts of Defendant NIS directly having direct (?) affect on the lawful commercial activities of Plaintiffs in the United States and elsewhere, are therefore violations of 28 USC Sections 1605(a)(3) and 1605(a)(5) among other provisions of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 11

55. As a result of Defendants Stoyanov and Mitkova willfully and intentionally failing to correct the unlawful acts alleged and as well allegedly participating in the scienter of the Defendants by intentionally neglecting the tortious acts, errors and omissions of other Defendant in failing to secure or return the Plaintiffs lawful property, among other violations of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act and international law, Plaintiffs suffered money damages, other serious and substantial harm to their commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere, adverse effects including but not limited to the substantial and significant loss of realizable revenue and profits from their property and commercial activities in the United States and loss of future opportunities and profits thereupon, including but not limited to the out-of-pocket expenses and loss of time necessarily incurred in investigating and responding to Defendants' unlawful conduct, there is in addition the embarrassment, loss of reputation, emotional distress, mental anguish, inconvenience and unfairness. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand a judgement against Defendant NIS for loss of property, future opportunity and non-pecuniary injury damages in excess of $ 1,200,000,000.00 plus prejudgement interest, post-judgement interest, costs, attorneys' fees and such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

COUNT IV DEFENDANT GOVERNMENT REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT

56. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 inclusive. 57. Defendant NIS was at all material times an agency or instrumentality of Defendant Government, a foreign state according to 28 USC 1603(b)(2) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 58. Defendant MPPO was at all material times an agency or instrumentality of Defendant Government, a foreign state according to 28 USC 1603(b)(2) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 59. Defendant Mario Stoyanov is an official of an agency or instrumentality of Defendant Government, a foreign state according to 28 USC 1603(b)(2) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 60. Defendant Emilia Mitkova is an official of an agency or instrumentality of Defendant Government, a foreign state according to 28 USC 1603(b)(2) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. 12

61. Defendant Government is not immune from the unlawful acts alleged herein and is liable under 28 USC 1605(a) for the conduct of its officials, jointly and severally, agencies or instrumentalities, on account of the unlawful acts alleged herein among others damaging Plaintiffs' commercial activities in the United States and elsewhere, their rights to property to have been acquired by succession and …

13