1. In its Opposition on Provisional Measures, the Slovak Republic showed that Claimants misrepresented the identity of the U.S. claimant in this arbitration. In their Reply on Provisional Measures, Claimants now effectively admit that they did so. This is a serious matter with profound and conclusive implications for this proceeding.

2. Both in their Request for Arbitration and in their Application for Provisional Measures, Claimants represented to the Tribunal that EuroGas II1—the U.S. Claimant in this arbitration—had an interest in Rozmin (its alleged investment) since 16 March 1998.2 As Claimants now admit, however, the interest in Rozmin was acquired and held indirectly by a different entity—EuroGas I—which was dissolved on 11 July 2001.3

3. Confronted with these facts, Claimants now claim that their standing is predicated on a transaction not previously disclosed to the Slovak Republic or, remarkably, to this Tribunal. Indeed, Claimants now argue that their claim of standing is predicated entirely on a transaction not previously disclosed to the investing public, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the U.S. Bankruptcy Court with jurisdiction over all assets of EuroGas I.