[Strömberg]: Message to Pacific Defense Exports

[Connor]

Security Classification: SECURE
Document Classification and Security Act 1995
Encrypted by the Strömberg International Legal Consultants​

---

LETTER TO CEASE AND DESIST​

To whom it may concern within Pacific Defense Exports,

Our law firm, Strömberg International Legal Consultants, represents our client First Choice International in the interest of points of law. If you are represented by legal counsel, please direct this letter to your respective lawyers immediately and have them notify us of such representation. It should be noted that all correspondence is to go via our firm and you should not contact our client in reference to this letter.

It has been brought to our attention that Pacific Defense Exports, currently publicly advertise the sale of a number of military-grade aircraft manufactured by subsidiary organisations of which First Choice International is the majority and only share holder. This is in direct contravention of First Choice Defense, a subsidiary organisation of First Choice International, General Terms and Conditions; which prohibit this action. In addition to this your website and advertisement strategy makes claim to this product as your own which violates the reputation of our clients business, the product and the manufacturers.

I am duty-bound to inform you that Strömberg International Legal Consultants has collated a significant amount of evidence (including financial data and physical advertisement) that we intend to take to civil court should this cease and desist not be actioned immediately. Specifically we demand you cease trading of the following products:

• Mitsubishi SH-60J
• Mitsubishi SH-60K
• Mitsubishi UH-60J
• Mitsubishi UH-60JA
• MBB/Kawasaki BK 117

We demand that you provide us with written assurance within three days of receiving this letter. If you fail to comply with the demand, First Choice International is entitled to use your failure to comply as evidence of wilful infringement and seek monetary damages and equitable relief for your actions via the judicial system. If in the event that you fail to communicate with us, please be advised that First Choice International has asked us to communicate to you that it will be looking to pursue all available legal remedies and should we be forced to go via the judicial system they will be requesting court costs, counsel fees and other appropriate expenses. Your liability and exposure under such legal action could be considerable and will likely result in a monetary loss which we will pursue. We will be acting on behalf of our client and any further correspondence will be official, on behalf of our client and the judicial system of our choosing.

Before taking legal action, however, my client wishes to give you one opportunity to discontinue your illegal conduct by following the instruction given within this letter.

Ordinarily we are instructed by our client to seek reparation for the lost profit as a result of sales of unlicensed product by your organisation however at this stage we understand that no sales of this equipment have been completed thus on the condition this cease and desist is followed Strömberg International Legal Consultants will not be pursuing any settlement fees at this stage.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards.
Devin Lundin
Executive Liaison for First Choice International
Strömberg International Legal Consultants

@Suvorov
@Hollie

 

[Suvorov]

Official Communique of the State of Japan​

---

Ministry of Justice
Communique
EMAIL IS ENCRYPTED AND SECURELY SENT​

---

Dear Mr. Lundin,

It is with great concern and disappointment that my office is in receipt of your letter. We hope that this issue will not escalate further, however, at this time we find the contents of your letter to be premature and without merit. Given the nature of your client and our government, your client's immediate resort to threat of legal action without first seeking a less formal means of resolution is a shock to our government. We are fully prepared to dispute any and all claims with your client and will seek any and all damages, fees, and harms that flow from this matter. The Japanese government contests your clients claims for the following reasons:

I. Mitsubishi SH-60/ UH-60 & Variants are currently lawfully manufactured and sold by Mitsubishi.

1. The Mitsubishi SH-60/UH-60 and its variants are lawfully licensed productions: Since 1991, Mitsubishi has lawfully held a license to, and solely manufactured, all SH-60 helicopters and all of their variants. Until this license is revoked, any attempts to have Mitsubishi cease and desist its lawful manufacturing will be ignored as being without merit.
   1. Should your client wish to revoke Mitsubishi's lawfully held license, your client must inform Mitsubishi before attempting to send baseless cease and desist letters. As the license has not yet been revoked, this letter is premature.
   2. Should your client wish to revoke Mitsubishi's lawfully held license at this time, we may be forced to explore remedies for this breach of contract. Any and all damages that flow from this breach, including but not limited to, the cost to design a replacement model, as well as lost profits in the interim may be levied against your client.
2. The Mitsubishi SH-60/UH-60 are unique national products of Japan: These helicopters are not domestically produced clones of foreign controlled intellectual property. The SH-60 and its variants, while based on the Sikorsky model, are 100% manufactured in Japan, utilizing 100% Japanese parts without use of any parts from your client or parts produced outside of Japan. These aircraft are composed of Japanese avionics, Japanese engines, among other Japanese parts. These helicopters were domestically designed and modified to uniquely serve the Japanese Self-Defense forces. The extent of these modifications, in addition to its 100% domestic design, fabrication, production, and lack of reliance on foreign manufacturing input, makes these aircraft unique Japanese products. Under the law of Modern Nations, this product's origin is Japan.

II. MBB/ Kawasaki BK 117 was jointly designed by Japanese firm Kawasaki and German firm Messerschmitt-Bölkow-Blohm. The rights to manufacture this helicopter are owned separately by Kawasaki and MBB and its successors.

1. The rights to produce this helicopter are owned independently, in parallel, between Kawasaki and MBB. Japan, as a joint partner in the design of the Kawasaki BK 117, may continue to produce this helicopter without interference from your client. Please see the attached quotation describing the design process of the Kawasaki BK 117.

"On 25 February 1977, MBB and Kawasaki signed a cooperative agreement to abandon their independent efforts to design twin-engined general purpose helicopters in favour of a collaborative venture to development of a new rotorcraft for that role. While the programme's costs were shared equally, the workshare was divided into certain areas of the design. MBB utilised their expertise with the rigid rotor system used on the earlier Bo 105 to develop the majority of the dynamic systems and flight controls, while Kawasaki focused on the airframe, structural elements, and various other components. On 13 June 1979, MBB's flying prototype conducted its maiden flight at Ottobrunn, Bavaria, Germany; months later, it was followed by the Kawasaki prototype at Gifu, Chūbu region, Japan on 10 August 1979.​

​

Each company established their own final assembly line, producing the BK 117 for their respective regions."​

​

While the designs of this helicopter are largely the same, Kawasaki and MBB developed and has produced them independently. The design and production history of this aircraft fully demonstrate that the rights to design and manufacture this helicopter are not shared between the companies, but rather separately and independently held.​

​

2. While your client may or may not own the rights of MBB, we are unaware of Kawasaki's domestic production rights having been purchased. If your client has valid records purchasing Kawasaki's rights to the Japanese production of these Helicopters, please produce them so that we may validate your claims. Any claims to ownership of MBB's production rights as overriding that of Kawasaki will not be recognized.​

​

In summary, please provide: (1) an official letter from your client of their intent to breach its contract with Mitsubishi and revoke Mitsubishi's production license, at which point our government will explore all recourse for your client's breach; and (2) evidence, if any, that Kawasaki sold its independent production rights of its unique and separate variant of this helicopter to your client. Production of these documents are necessary for further discussion and action on this matter.


Yours Sincerely,

下稲葉耕吉

Kokichi Shimoinaba
Minister for Justice
@Connor
@Hollie

 

[Connor]

Security Classification: SECURE
Document Classification and Security Act 1995
Encrypted by the Strömberg International Legal Consultants​

---

LETTER TO CEASE AND DESIST​

Dear Kokichi Shimoinaba,

I am disappointed to hear of your misunderstanding of the cease and desist served upon you by our legal firm. Please allow me to provide some substance to the information I have provided in our previous correspondence which, in our eyes, serves as the out-of-court settlement you described completely avoiding the need for legal action all together. I must stress that correspondence from Strömberg International Legal Consultants does not suggest that we intend to deal with this via the judicial system and our role is purely to express the interests of our client; we are committed to ensuring all disputes are resolved in the most efficient and respectful way possible, this often being a simple cease and desist describing our concerns and demands.

The action of our firm, on behalf of our client First Choice International, in no way represents their current relationship with your government and instead enforces the integrity of their brand, products, customer-base and manufacturers. Something we are contractually obliged to enforce.

To address the points raised in your correspondence, if I may...

Mitsubishi SH-60/UH-60 and respective variants: First Choice International does not and has not ratified any known licencing agreements between themselves and the Government of Japan; I encourage you to provide documentation to this effect immediately to resolve this issue. Your claims are unfounded and are found by our firm to be provocative and aggressive. Your claims regarding the production, design and manufacture of the Mitsubishi variants of the others Sikorsky aircraft are again unfounded - whilst parts of this model are produced domestically within Japan, this remains a Sikorsky product and remains reliant on Sikorsky manufacturing plants to continue production. I am empowered by our client to cause Sikorsky manufacturers to halt production of any model bound for or on behalf of Japan, this will include those produced for your own Self Defence Force as a result of being unable to differentiate between unlawful sale and regional production.

MBB/Kawasaki BK 117: MBB has since dissolved into Eurocopter, a subsidiary of Airbus Group, of which our client is the majority and only shareholder. This product was developed from the former MBB Bo 105 and whilst we acknowledge Kawasaki involvement in the development of the product, this is jointly manufactured product it has become unequivocally recognised as a Eurocopter product. The sale of this product by Japan undoubtedly effects the integrity and brand-name of First Choice International, something we dispute.

I am disappointed to see your threat to pursue claims for damages, including the cost of designing new models, following a supposed breach of contract. This is something neither Strömberg International Legal Consultants or our client, First Choice International, wanted as an outcome to this situation however we are happy to pursue this via the legal system if you do not comply with the cease and desist provided. Our legal firm is a multi-billion dollar organisation and has had similiar disputes previously which resulted in referral to the International Court of Justice; we won this case and our defendant was fined in excess of $2,000,000,000.00 excluding court fees and legal costs imposed by our client, these were levied on top of our awarded amount. We want to avoid having to endure another lengthy court case which could see a similar financial penalty being imposed on your subsidiary agencies or even your government itself, with the presumption that Pacific Defense Exports Company is a state-owned corporation.

Nevertheless, we are happy to negotiate. First Choice International, starting as one itself, is always happy to develop and assist in the growth of small companies in order to encourage generalised market growth and to support local economies. As I have already explained our legal firm has already won cases to the tune of billions of dollars, something I am certain your newly-formed government cannot afford to pay at this early stage in your establishment should you inevitably fail to provide sufficient evidence to a recognised court; in addition, these cases have been proven to last months as there are often unexpected and complex issues that arise form this type of civil dispute. Your correspondence has been professional and respectful throughout and as such we are willing to arrange a deal which will not only satisfy our client but in-turn allow for your organisation to continue to flourish.

First Choice International will permit the continued sale and production of the MBB/Kawasaki BK 117 on the basis 'MBB' is clearly displayed in all and any advertisement of this product on the basis that all sale, advertisement and production of the Mitsubishi SH-60/UH-60 and any other Sikorsky product ceases immediately and without delay.

Please do not underestimate the value of our negotiated cease and desist, this is something Strömberg International Legal Consultants has never done before with previous obstructions being forwarded directly to the judicial system. I cannot stress enough that this arrangement is purely as a result of your governments new establishment, absolute maturity and professionalism.

I very much look forward to your response.

Regards,
Devin Lundin
Executive Liaison for First Choice International
Strömberg International Legal Consultants

@Suvorov
@Hollie

 

[Suvorov]

Official Communique of the State of Japan​

---

Ministry of Justice
Communique
EMAIL IS ENCRYPTED AND SECURELY SENT​

---

Dear Mr. Lundin,

While a Cease and Desist letter is a pre-judicial step, it carries with it the weight of legal ramifications if not followed and is often a required first step sought by courts. Had your client elected to call or otherwise contact our government itself own or through counsel, the current situation would have been avoided and discussed amicably. However, we are prepared to reach an agreement outside of the judicial system.

With regards to the Mitsubishi H-60, and other variants, please see the following link to the production history of the Mitsubishi H-60 and its variants, highlighting Mitsubishi's ownership of the production license for the following variants:

1. SH-60J "The SH-60J is built in Japan under license from Sikorsky. It began deliveries in August 1991 and entered service thereafter."
2. UH-60J "In 1988, the Japan Air Self-Defense Force choose the UH-60L to replace its KV-107 and Sikorsky S-62 helicopters.[14][15] The first aircraft was built by Sikorsky, with the company designation S-70A-12, and two more were assembled by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries.[2][16] Mitsubishi is producing the remaining UH-60Js under license"
   1. UH-60JA is an upgraded variant of this platform.
3. Mitsubishi, given its demonstrated history with the platform, also has the right to continue research and development on new variants and uses of these platforms. (See UH-60JA).

Our government asks the following questions regarding First Choice International's ("FCI") objection to Mitsubishi's continued production of these platforms:

1. Does FCI object to the continued domestic production of these platforms under the current Mitsubishi production license?
   • (A) If yes, please provide your client's written intention to breach the existing production licensing agreement.
   • (B) If no, Pacific Defense Export Company ("PDEC") will immediately cease international sale of the platform pending negotiations under (2).
2. What terms, if any, would satisfy your client for Mitsubishi to resume unhindered international sale of this platform under the production license?

With regards to the MBB/Kawasaki 117:

While our government is happy that your client will cease interference with our sale of this platform; we do not recognize Kawasaki's production rights having been removed or as non-existent absent evidence of the sale of Kawasaki's independent production rights. However, we celebrate the joint, international history of this platform and so we have no issue continuing to advertise this platform as we currently have it listed: a "MBB/Kawasaki 117."

We believe that an answer in the negative to our first question will conclude this matter. To avoid complex litigation over the terms of the production license, should FCI recognize Mitsubishi's rights to domestic production, we are prepared to abandon our efforts to sell our licensed products internationally with the hope that FCI will be willing to engage in new discussions about a mutually beneficial path forward. Should your client wish to carry onto negotiations, we would welcome them here.

Yours Sincerely,

下稲葉耕吉

Kokichi Shimoinaba
Minister for Justice
@Connor
@Hollie

 

[Connor]

Security Classification: SECURE
Document Classification and Security Act 1995
Encrypted by the Strömberg International Legal Consultants​

---

LETTER TO CEASE AND DESIST​

Dear Kokichi Shimoinaba,

We are familiar with the serving of a cease and desist as the first step towards sufficient evidence to enable a pre-trial hearing in district court and I will take your explanation as evidence of understanding the process, the demand and the consequences. First Choice International is the largest defence and aerospace retailer on the globe who, at this stage, have no agreements with government entities and remain an independent civilian organisation. It simply is not practical for us to reach bespoke agreement with each and every violator in the first instance, the serving of a cease and desist makes our position, and that of our client, very clear. We will pursue legal proceedings should our demands not be met.

First Choice International currently has a number of Sikorsky aircraft available via their subsidiary First Choice Defence and currently has no restrictions on sale.

We do not recognise the domestic production rights held by the Government of Japan and are not satisfied with the documentation provided proving former licenced arrangement. All purchases of this product are to be directed via First Choice Defence as the rest of the international community has been doing for quite some time.

Strömberg International Legal Consultants has already attempted negotiations with your government in order to secure a deal and this is one we will stand by as a way to seek out-of-court disposal. The Government of Japan may continue the sale of the 'MBB/Kawasaki 117', on the provision it is advertised as such, and cease all manufacturing of Mitsubishi SH-60/UH-60 and respective variants. I strongly believe that we have been lenient in our negotiation in order to secure a mature arrangement with your government.

Regards,
Devin Lundin
Executive Liaison for First Choice International
Strömberg International Legal Consultants

@Suvorov
@Hollie

 

[Suvorov]

Official Communique of the State of Japan​

---

Ministry of Justice
Communique
EMAIL IS ENCRYPTED AND SECURELY SENT​

---

Dear Mr. Lundin,

At this point, we interpret your continued posture as an affirmative breach of the provided production license. You have failed to provide any evidence that such production license has been revoked nor expired. Production, advertisement, and sale of all Mitsubishi licensed helicopters under this license are at this moment halted pending further investigation.

Kawasaki holds independent rights of production of the Kawasaki BK 117, outside of your offered permissions. Having failed to provide evidence of such rights being sold, Kawasaki will continue to sell this product unrestricted, as it deems fit.

Given this posture, we wish to inquire about your client's intentions to either honor or breach additional production licenses held by Japanese firms. Please see the following, non-exhaustive list:

1. Lockheed P-3 Orion - Produced under Kawasaki production license since 1984. Held by Kawasaki
2. F-2A/B Fighters - Which was jointly developed by Japanese and American firms, under contract which grants 60% development in Japan. Held by Mitsubishi. Please also note that the United States of America was a party and guarantor of this license.
3. F-15J - Held by Mitsubishi
4. CH-47JA - Held by Kawasaki

Yours Sincerely,

下稲葉耕吉

Kokichi Shimoinaba
Minister for Justice
@Connor
@Hollie

 

[Connor]

Security Classification: SECURE
Document Classification and Security Act 1995
Encrypted by the Strömberg International Legal Consultants​

---

LETTER TO CEASE AND DESIST​

Dear Kokichi Shimoinaba,

I am disappointed to see that in lieu of a peaceful arrangement you have instead decided to pursue an aggressive and unnecessary attack against First Choice International. Our correspondence gave the impression to our offices that the aforementioned cease and desist notice would be honoured following the reasonable arrangements made between our organisations. This is evidently not the case.

I can confirm on an official basis that First Choice International and all subsidiary organisations currently has no ratified production arrangements with the Government of Japan, a Japanese civlian organisation or any other international organisation registered and/or operating within Japanese sovereign territory. With First Choice International remaining the majority or only shareholder in many aerospace, maritime and defence organisations their products are subject to the First Choice Defense General Terms and Conditions, which you have undoubtedly breached, voiding any licencing arrangements you dispute to have. I must stress that as the majority shareholder our client holds every right to dissolve inherited production licences from organisations that've since dissolved into the First Choice International brand. Strömberg International Legal Consultants, on behalf of our client, does not recognise this as an aforementioned 'breach'.

With the cessation of trade as requested in our initial correspondence, you will receive no further communication from Strömberg International Legal Consultants however should you continue to operate unlawfully we will be forced to approach the courts for a resolution. As previously states, our firm is yet to lose a legal dispute and history shows that these cases can often result in billions of dollars lost in files and with additional fees added on top of this amount. I am sure your government is reluctant to lose such a gross amount of money so early in your development thus an out-of-court disposal is preferred on both sides.

Failure to comply with our cease and desist may incur further implications for your organisation including, but not limited to, a national production ban on all First Choice International products of which there are many.

Strömberg International Legal Consultants continues to operate on behalf of our client and should any bespoke arrangement, production licencing or alternative resolution outside of this cease and desist be desired then all correspondence should be forwarded via our offices. We are in place to enforce undue infringement of our clients rights however this does not rule out the ratification of future agreements.

You are not to contact our client directly; failure to comply with this, should this dispute result in a judicial trial, you may be liable to criminal convictions.

Regards,
Devin Lundin
Executive Liaison for First Choice International
Strömberg International Legal Consultants

@Suvorov
@Hollie

 

[Suvorov]

Official Communique of the State of Japan​

---

Ministry of Justice
Communique
EMAIL IS ENCRYPTED AND SECURELY SENT​

---

Dear Mr. Lundin,

Once again we interpret your correspondence to indicate that your client's intention is to breach all Japanese held production licenses. All production of the aforementioned products has been halted pending further investigation. This is not an "aggression" nor "attack" against FCI. FCI has demonstrated a lack of regard for existing contracts, international law, and has violated our rights under these agreements by reneging on the agreements of its subsidiaries.

To begin, the government of Japan, nor its represented firms, ever made any arrangements under the FCI terms and conditions. Therefore, it is impossible for any firm that we represent, nor our government, to have violated terms and conditions to which we did not bind ourselves to at the creation of the contracts. Obligations of contracts are sealed at the moment of creation.

Second, when FCI purchased the majority stake in its subsidiaries, it also purchased the existing contracts that the subsidiary organizations held, thereby binding FCI to the contracts as purchased. Bilateral, negotiated contracts are not dissolved as freely as you indicate, not without consequence. As you know, the difficulty of dissolution of a contract is the core of contract law and is the basic tenant of contracts to ensure entities can operate confidently under the arrangements reached. Simply purchasing a company does not free oneself from the obligations of that company. FCI as the successor to these organizations, inherited not only all the rights of these companies, but also all of their obligations. As all of these contracts are bilateral agreements, and not gifts to the firms we represent, FCI cannot unilaterally dissolve them. As mentioned, at least one of these contracts was guaranteed by the United States of America itself.

Our government is fully prepared to explore all legal remedies to FCI's breach of these numerous contracts, each of which is valuable on its own. Until we hear otherwise, we will continue to interpret your correspondence as affirmative breaches of the rights held under these licenses. We welcome any negotiations on behalf of FCI to prevent breaches of these lawfully held, valid, and continuing licenses held by the firms we represent. We are more than happy to make slight amendments to our held licenses.

As an offer, which in no way should be interpreted as abandonment of our rights under the licenses but rather as an attempt at resolution, we are willing to offer 5% surplus to FCI whenever any products are produced under our licenses. We are also willing to stipulate that all production under these licenses shall be restricted to domestic use only. Our consent to modify these licenses is extremely generous under the circumstances and we hope is a show of good faith of our desire to resolve this matter outside of the judicial process.

Yours Sincerely,

下稲葉耕吉

Kokichi Shimoinaba
Minister for Justice
@Connor
@Hollie

 

[Connor]

Security Classification: SECURE
Document Classification and Security Act 1995
Encrypted by the Strömberg International Legal Consultants​

---

LETTER TO CEASE AND DESIST​

Dear Kokichi Shimoinaba,

Your inconsistent approach to our demand to cease and desist only promotes your clear uncertainty regarding your legal position in this case.

I have made it abundantly clear that First Choice International does not recognise your claims to any form of production licencing and you are misinformed if you understood the purchase of the now subsidiary organisations as the inheritance of your licencing arrangements. All organisations that sit underneath the First Choice International umbrella were sold a number of years ago by the Government of France and the United States Government among others; during negotiations there was no discussion surrounding any licencing arrangements and as such your claim remains with former conglomerates.

First Choice Defence General Terms and Conditions stipulate that third parties enter a legally binding contract with First Choice International upon dispatch of goods, which in this case refers to the release of goods from their manufacturers, and not before. The Government of Japan, by producing our clients products, agree to these terms.

We will not alter our standpoint as we have already been lenient with our approach - you will cease and desist your production of First Choice International products, failure to comply with this final demand will result in a cessation of correspondence, sanctions by First Choice International and referral to the judicial system of our choosing.

Regards,
Devin Lundin
Executive Liaison for First Choice International
Strömberg International Legal Consultants

@Suvorov
@Hollie

 

[Suvorov]

Official Communique of the State of Japan​

---

Ministry of Justice
Communique
EMAIL IS ENCRYPTED AND SECURELY SENT​

---

Dear Mr. Lundin,

There has been no inconsistency with our approach and our legal position is clear. Our attempts to negotiate, as we stated, should not be interpreted as abandonment of our position, which is rooted in basic, universal contract law. To make this clear, our firms are lawful holders of production licenses which have not been legally revoked or terminated. Simply put:

1. The subsidiaries of your client entered into production licensing agreements with our represented firms. As evidenced in the numerous documentary proofs provided. These licenses were agreed to under terms agreed to at the point of the license, not FCI terms and conditions.
2. The subsidiaries were then sold to your client. Your client immediately then inherited all rights and obligations of the companies purchased. Contracts are not dissolved upon purchase and third parties cannot negotiate away rights held by another party, even at the point of sale. The governments of the United States and France cannot interfere with the rights of Japanese firms.
3. There is no "misinformation" about inheritance of obligations. As successors of these subsidiary organizations, it holds their obligations. All modern contracts include assignments and succession clauses. Please see the following links: Successor in Interest. Once again, this is fundamental contract law.
4. Selling a company does not bind the existing contract holders of the first company to the second. Such a system would subject international business to complete anarchy.
5. There needed not be discussion of existing licensing agreements at the point of sale. It is the duty of the seller and purchaser to perform due diligence on the traded entity's obligations and responsibilities. If the sellers failed to inform your client of their existing contracts, then the issue with the seller and not with our firms. Lack of disclosure does not free your client of these obligations, as it is not the duty of license holders to make these declarations. Your client is still liable for those contracts. However, if your client feels they were materially harmed by the seller's lack of disclosure of existing licensing agreements, your client may seek to enjoin the original sellers in any litigation. Such joinder does not affect the rights of our firms and is solely a recourse for your client to recover damages owed.
6. Given the above, our firms still hold rights under these production licenses as they have not been terminated in any way.
7. Your client may not unilaterally end bilateral contracts.
8. In failing to respect these licenses, your client is in breach of the agreements.

We have offered to negotiate only as a means to promote smooth relations will all. International law must be respected.

Yours Sincerely,

下稲葉耕吉

Kokichi Shimoinaba
Minister for Justice
@Connor
@Hollie

 

[Connor]

Upon receipt of this correspondence Strömberg International Legal Consultants privately instructs manufacturers to cease production of Japan-bound products, unless purchased via the appropriate approved channels; a copy of the appropriate notice has been sent to all companies working on conjunction of First Choice International. This case is issued reference number SILC/003/G/95 whilst appropriate evidence exhibiting takes place. As promised, no further correspondence will take place.

@Suvorov
@Hollie