UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Civil Action No.

LIFECHOICE INTERNATIONAL INC.,

ROBERT KAP,
DIMITAR HRISTOV, BORISLAV MARINOV,
RADKA PETROVA,
And
Complaint -
LIFECHOICE BANQ1 CORPORATION
Class Action
On behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

Plaintiffs,
v.

THE NATIONAL SPECIALIZED INVESTIGATIVE SERVICE

OF THE GOVERNMENT OF BULGARIA,
THE MAIN PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF BULGARIA
And
Jury Trial Demanded
THE REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA
Represented by
The HONOURABLE MURAVEI RADEV
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-of-
pocket 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 pre-
judgement 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 pre-
judgement 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