شركة المخازن العمومية (( أجيليتي )) ...... 2

[AutoCad]

ايه والله وانت صاج الخسارة اكثر من 60 بالمية بس ماأقول الا الحمدلله عل كل شيء

قول الحمد لله

في خساير بسبب هالسهم أكثر من 1000%

من 5 دنانير و4 و3 إلى اليوم 350 فلس

الحمد لله على كل حال

 

[ahmadosh]

عندي سؤال الاخ احمدوش صار له وقت مو مبين عسي المانع خير يارب

تسأل عنك العافيه

انا في اجازة

والعودة قريبه مع أخبار طيبه بإذن الله

 

[Cozmo]

ان شاء الله يتابع مشوار الصعود ويعوض خساير الناس

 

[خالد kh]

ايه والله وانت صاج الخسارة اكثر من 60 بالمية بس ماأقول الا الحمدلله عل كل شيء

قول الحمد لله

في خساير بسبب هالسهم أكثر من 1000%

من 5 دنانير و4 و3 إلى اليوم 350 فلس

الحمد لله على كل حال

الله يعوض علي الجميع

ترى ياخوي انا قايل الحمد لله لا وحاط ابتسامة بعد لو ركزت شوية كان شفتها

 

[خالد kh]

تسأل عنك العافيه

انا في اجازة

والعودة قريبه مع أخبار طيبه بإذن الله

اجازة سعيدة وعودة حميدة ان شاء الله
ترى سألنا عليك بس علشان انا فقدناك ياالغالي

 

[رجل مبتدئ]

الاخبار الجديده اول باول

شباب هذا موضوع عن اجيلتي يا ليت واحد يعطينا الزبده : ادخل الموقع
http://www.scribd.com/full/33953478?access_key=key-250gl3omse79dgvrq9pe

 

[رجل مبتدئ]

David Isenberg: Just Another Day in Helping Make the U.S. Military the Best Supplied in Human History
Thanks to the ever watchful and observant Ms. Sparky, always on the lookout for the latest in contractor malfeasance, I want to share this latest news on the newly announced suspensions of PWC/Agility executives.

Some may recall that last year, on November 9, 2009 to be precise, a Criminal Indictment was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against the Public Warehousing Company (PWC) aka Agility DGS Holdings, Inc., headquartered in Kuwait, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Conspiracy to Commit an Offense), 18 U.S.C. § 1031 (Major Fraud Against the United States), and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Fraud by Wire). PWC was indicted on allegations it overcharged the U.S. government on a multibillion-dollar contract to supply food for troops in Kuwait and Iraq.

On July 1 the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) sent out a memo announcing that Agility’s Chairman and Managing Director Tarek Sultan and two others have been suspended indefinitely from doing business with the DoD under ANY circumstances!

The suspended parties are PWC affiliates who actively participated in the criminal conduct that lead to the indictment.

Agility, by the way, is a member company of the trade association IPOA, which goes by the name of The Association of the Stability Operations Industry. It is headed by Doug Brooks, well known for his ubiquitous sound bite that “this [U.S. military operations in Iraq] is the best-supported and -supplied military operation in history.” Perhaps he might want to rethink that.

One also wonders what IPOA will do regarding Agility? After all, IPOA’s exhortative but toothless Code of Conduct, Article 3.3, states “Signatories shall take firm and definitive action if their personnel engage in unlawful activities. For serious infractions, such as grave breaches of international humanitarian and human rights laws, Signatories should report such offences to the relevant authorities.”

Perhaps nothing will be done. After all overcharging on a food contract most likely is not considered a grave breach of “international humanitarian and human rights laws.” Or perhaps a lawyer could argue that a suspension is not tantamount to an “unlawful activity. Although being suspended indefinitely strikes me as a pretty good sign that something is not kosher.

One of Ms. Sparky’s colleagues observes

 

[Goldy]

ممتاز

 

[بروكركويتي]

ممكن تنورنا ياخوي

 

[الحياد فن]

قاع 2004 كان 1.240 بتاريخ 3/1/2004

قاع 2003 كان 365 فلس بتاريخ 3/2/2003

قاع 2002 كان 270 فلس بتاريخ 1/1/2002

قاع 2001 كان 170 فلس بتاريخ 9/1/2001

والى الان تم كسر قاع 2004 وتم كسر قاع 2003 هل سيذهب السهم الى قاع 2002 ويواصل الى قاع 2001 ام سيكتفى بقاع 2003 :d

لازال السهم بموجه هابطه وهو يتداول بين قاع 2003 وقاع 2002

ونحن الان بين امرين اما ان يكسر قاع 2002 ويتجه الى قاع 2001 او ان يخترق قاع 2003 ويتجه الى قاع 2004

 

[Goldy]

هذا اخر ايميل اندز من ادارة اجيليتي يوضح وضع الشركة في تاريخ 6-7-2010 :
This message was sent to Agility, DGS, GIL and Infrastructure leadership, to DGS-all, Kuwait-all, and to key communications contacts.

We recognize that employees, customers, and partners have ongoing questions related to the Prime Vendor legal case. Going forward, Connections will be the primary resource for providing updates related to the case.

In order to receive up to date information about the latest status, please continue to check the legal dispute dedicated resource page on Connections. You can access this site by clicking here, or from the front page of Connections. If you are unable to find the answer you are looking for, you can also email: contractdisputehotline@agilitylogistics.com.

For your reference, we are also attaching the latest Q+A about the case below. We hope that this document, along with the resources on the Connections legal dispute site, will help you engage stakeholders with accurate information that addresses their questions and concerns.


Questions and Answers Related to the US Government Legal Dispute (July 5, 2010)


What is the case about?

In November 2009, the Department of Justice announced an indictment of PWC for alleged overcharging the US government in connection with the PWC’s Prime Vendor contract to supply food for U.S. troops in Iraq and Kuwait.

What’s the Company’s position?

This is a contract dispute not a criminal matter. The Company’s prices, its choice of suppliers, and its business practices were all disclosed to and approved by the Defense Logistics Agency, which is the U.S. government customer for the Prime Vendor contract.

What about the Company’s performance on this contract?

PWC’s performance on this contract has never been in dispute. For seven years, PWC has provided exceptional service to troops and superior value to taxpayers. By key food-industry benchmarks, the Company’s performance in a warzone exceeds the performance of suppliers operating in the domestic U.S. market. The Company has repeatedly been recognized for excellence by its U.S. government customer. Gen. David Petraeus singled us out for praise, saying PWC had “performed a miracle across Iraq.”

Why try to settle if the Company has a strong legal case?

This case has badly damaged our defense and government contracting business. It has generated uncertainty among shareholders, employees and customers, in part because commercial competitors have spread rumors and false information. We would like to remove that uncertainty and rebuild our defense and government business.

What did the Company do after it learned of the Department of Justice investigation?

PWC cooperated over a two-year period by providing millions of pages of documents and detailed answers to specific questions that the Department of Justice posed about the food contract.

In addition, the Company tried to resolve the matter by taking it to a U.S. Army contract appeals board and proposing third-party mediation. The Department of Justice blocked or rejected those efforts.


What about the Department of Justice’s claim that the Company is a “fugitive”?

Fugitives flee. PWC is fighting. The Company is presenting its legal arguments in court, insisting on its rights and asking the court to make sure the Department of Justice follows U.S. law. The bottom line is that the Department of Justice is trying to criminalize a contract dispute.

Keep in mind that while all this is going on, we continue delivering for our customers. At the height of violence in Iraq, we kept going. Thirty-three of our colleagues were killed and hundreds injured when they put their lives on the line to deliver for U.S. forces. We did not abandon the mission then, and we aren’t abandoning it now. Our work has continued, uninterrupted by this case and undiminished in terms of the level of service we are providing. Troops and contractors in Iraq and Kuwait count on us every day. We have never let them down, and we won’t – regardless of what transpires in this case.


I have heard that some executives have also been suspended by the U.S. government. What impact does this have on the company or its customers?


There is no impact of these individual suspensions on existing U.S. government contracts or on our commercial business. The suspensions are an extension of the old allegations to certain people deemed “affiliates” of PWC. We view this action as one in a series of attempts to exert pressure on PWC and to shore up a weak legal case.

What does it mean that PWC and various affiliate companies are on the US government’s Excluded Parties List?

Any company that is on the Excluded Parties List is temporarily suspended from winning new US government business. This suspension does not apply to existing US government contracts. In other words, while PWC is unable to win new government business until this case is resolved, it can (and does) continue to perform on various contracts that it currently holds with the US government. This suspension has no implications for commercial business with commercial customers. This suspension applies only to US government contracts.


Does working with Agility cause any legal or compliance concerns for Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) customers in the United States?

No. There are no compliance concerns whatsoever for GIL customers in the United States or any other part of the world. Agility is suspended from winning new US government business. This suspension applies only to US government business. The legal dispute has no implications for commercial customers or commercial business.


Is there any possibility that the US government will impound or stop my freight in the United States if I use Agility?

Absolutely not. This legal dispute has no impact whatsoever on any type of business that is not directly funded by the US government


A Company lawyer was quoted as saying that the case has been damaging. What did he mean?


That lawyer represents a U.S. subsidiary of Agility Defense & Government Services – not PWC itself. He was referring to the DGS business group and the damage that DGS has suffered as a result of this case. The damage to DGS is serious and undeniable. This case prevents DGS from pursuing new U.S. government contracts, which were the biggest source of DGS revenue.

Agility’s GIL commercial business group and its infrastructure businesses are not involved in the legal process. They aren’t the subject of any allegations. They continue to perform for existing customers and pursue promising new opportunities.

Nothing about this case has diminished PWC’s unique competitive advantages: We offer a one-of-a-kind global footprint, highly specialized capabilities, extraordinary personal service, and innovative solutions. Those advantages bring us new customers and help us recruit the best talent in the industry.

Why do news articles and press releases identify the Company as PWC, instead of Agility?

The Department of Justice chose to refer to the Company as PWC in initial court papers, although it has sometimes used PWC and Agility interchangeably. The parent company of the various Agility subsidiaries has had the name “The Public Warehousing Company,” and it is the parent company that holds the Prime Vendor contract. The Justice Department has leveled allegations against three corporate entities. Those entities are the corporate parent (PWC); the Company’s Kuwait-based Agility DGS subsidiary; and a U.S. subsidiary of Agility DGS.

How has this dispute affected Agility GIL?

Agility GIL’s business is commercial. Its core customers are other businesses. GIL’s core commercial business and core business customers are unaffected by the case.

Outside of those core areas, GIL has benefitted from its teamwork with DGS. On some government contracts, DGS uses GIL as a subcontractor or teams with GIL as a joint venture partner. Because DGS has not been able to pursue new U.S. government work, there has been no new work for GIL in that limited area.

How does this dispute affect a GIL commercial customer?

The case has no effect at all on GIL commercial customers. There is no legal reason why a commercial customer cannot do business with Agility. The case prevents Agility from winning new U.S. government contracts. It doesn’t prevent Agility from working on its current U.S. government contracts. And most important, it does not prevent – or seek to prevent – Agility from doing any other kind of business with any party.

 

[رجل مبتدئ]

بالتوفيق يا شباب راح اجيبلكم الخبر باذن الله وابشركم

 

[خالد المالكي]

هذا اخر ايميل اندز من ادارة اجيليتي يوضح وضع الشركة في تاريخ 6-7-2010 :
This message was sent to Agility, DGS, GIL and Infrastructure leadership, to DGS-all, Kuwait-all, and to key communications contacts.

We recognize that employees, customers, and partners have ongoing questions related to the Prime Vendor legal case. Going forward, Connections will be the primary resource for providing updates related to the case.

In order to receive up to date information about the latest status, please continue to check the legal dispute dedicated resource page on Connections. You can access this site by clicking here, or from the front page of Connections. If you are unable to find the answer you are looking for, you can also email: contractdisputehotline@agilitylogistics.com.

For your reference, we are also attaching the latest Q+A about the case below. We hope that this document, along with the resources on the Connections legal dispute site, will help you engage stakeholders with accurate information that addresses their questions and concerns.


Questions and Answers Related to the US Government Legal Dispute (July 5, 2010)


What is the case about?

In November 2009, the Department of Justice announced an indictment of PWC for alleged overcharging the US government in connection with the PWC’s Prime Vendor contract to supply food for U.S. troops in Iraq and Kuwait.

What’s the Company’s position?

This is a contract dispute not a criminal matter. The Company’s prices, its choice of suppliers, and its business practices were all disclosed to and approved by the Defense Logistics Agency, which is the U.S. government customer for the Prime Vendor contract.

What about the Company’s performance on this contract?

PWC’s performance on this contract has never been in dispute. For seven years, PWC has provided exceptional service to troops and superior value to taxpayers. By key food-industry benchmarks, the Company’s performance in a warzone exceeds the performance of suppliers operating in the domestic U.S. market. The Company has repeatedly been recognized for excellence by its U.S. government customer. Gen. David Petraeus singled us out for praise, saying PWC had “performed a miracle across Iraq.”

Why try to settle if the Company has a strong legal case?

This case has badly damaged our defense and government contracting business. It has generated uncertainty among shareholders, employees and customers, in part because commercial competitors have spread rumors and false information. We would like to remove that uncertainty and rebuild our defense and government business.

What did the Company do after it learned of the Department of Justice investigation?

PWC cooperated over a two-year period by providing millions of pages of documents and detailed answers to specific questions that the Department of Justice posed about the food contract.

In addition, the Company tried to resolve the matter by taking it to a U.S. Army contract appeals board and proposing third-party mediation. The Department of Justice blocked or rejected those efforts.


What about the Department of Justice’s claim that the Company is a “fugitive”?

Fugitives flee. PWC is fighting. The Company is presenting its legal arguments in court, insisting on its rights and asking the court to make sure the Department of Justice follows U.S. law. The bottom line is that the Department of Justice is trying to criminalize a contract dispute.

Keep in mind that while all this is going on, we continue delivering for our customers. At the height of violence in Iraq, we kept going. Thirty-three of our colleagues were killed and hundreds injured when they put their lives on the line to deliver for U.S. forces. We did not abandon the mission then, and we aren’t abandoning it now. Our work has continued, uninterrupted by this case and undiminished in terms of the level of service we are providing. Troops and contractors in Iraq and Kuwait count on us every day. We have never let them down, and we won’t – regardless of what transpires in this case.


I have heard that some executives have also been suspended by the U.S. government. What impact does this have on the company or its customers?


There is no impact of these individual suspensions on existing U.S. government contracts or on our commercial business. The suspensions are an extension of the old allegations to certain people deemed “affiliates” of PWC. We view this action as one in a series of attempts to exert pressure on PWC and to shore up a weak legal case.

What does it mean that PWC and various affiliate companies are on the US government’s Excluded Parties List?

Any company that is on the Excluded Parties List is temporarily suspended from winning new US government business. This suspension does not apply to existing US government contracts. In other words, while PWC is unable to win new government business until this case is resolved, it can (and does) continue to perform on various contracts that it currently holds with the US government. This suspension has no implications for commercial business with commercial customers. This suspension applies only to US government contracts.


Does working with Agility cause any legal or compliance concerns for Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) customers in the United States?

No. There are no compliance concerns whatsoever for GIL customers in the United States or any other part of the world. Agility is suspended from winning new US government business. This suspension applies only to US government business. The legal dispute has no implications for commercial customers or commercial business.


Is there any possibility that the US government will impound or stop my freight in the United States if I use Agility?

Absolutely not. This legal dispute has no impact whatsoever on any type of business that is not directly funded by the US government


A Company lawyer was quoted as saying that the case has been damaging. What did he mean?


That lawyer represents a U.S. subsidiary of Agility Defense & Government Services – not PWC itself. He was referring to the DGS business group and the damage that DGS has suffered as a result of this case. The damage to DGS is serious and undeniable. This case prevents DGS from pursuing new U.S. government contracts, which were the biggest source of DGS revenue.

Agility’s GIL commercial business group and its infrastructure businesses are not involved in the legal process. They aren’t the subject of any allegations. They continue to perform for existing customers and pursue promising new opportunities.

Nothing about this case has diminished PWC’s unique competitive advantages: We offer a one-of-a-kind global footprint, highly specialized capabilities, extraordinary personal service, and innovative solutions. Those advantages bring us new customers and help us recruit the best talent in the industry.

Why do news articles and press releases identify the Company as PWC, instead of Agility?

The Department of Justice chose to refer to the Company as PWC in initial court papers, although it has sometimes used PWC and Agility interchangeably. The parent company of the various Agility subsidiaries has had the name “The Public Warehousing Company,” and it is the parent company that holds the Prime Vendor contract. The Justice Department has leveled allegations against three corporate entities. Those entities are the corporate parent (PWC); the Company’s Kuwait-based Agility DGS subsidiary; and a U.S. subsidiary of Agility DGS.

How has this dispute affected Agility GIL?

Agility GIL’s business is commercial. Its core customers are other businesses. GIL’s core commercial business and core business customers are unaffected by the case.

Outside of those core areas, GIL has benefitted from its teamwork with DGS. On some government contracts, DGS uses GIL as a subcontractor or teams with GIL as a joint venture partner. Because DGS has not been able to pursue new U.S. government work, there has been no new work for GIL in that limited area.

How does this dispute affect a GIL commercial customer?

The case has no effect at all on GIL commercial customers. There is no legal reason why a commercial customer cannot do business with Agility. The case prevents Agility from winning new U.S. government contracts. It doesn’t prevent Agility from working on its current U.S. government contracts. And most important, it does not prevent – or seek to prevent – Agility from doing any other kind of business with any party.

هذي ترجمة اية الله جوجل

.

.

ونحن ندرك أن الموظفين والعملاء والشركاء والأسئلة المستمرة المتعلقة بقضية رئيس البائع القانونية. ومستقبلا ، سوف تكون الاتصالات المورد الأساسي لتوفير التحديثات المتعلقة بالقضية.

من أجل الحصول على ما يصل إلى أحدث المعلومات حول آخر تطورات الوضع ، يرجى مواصلة التحقق من نزاع قانوني صفحة مخصصة للموارد على اتصالات. يمكنك الوصول إلى هذا الموقع من خلال النقر هنا ، أو من الصفحة الأولى من اتصالات. إذا كنت غير قادر على العثور على الإجابة التي تبحث عنها ، يمكنك أيضا البريد الإلكتروني : contractdisputehotline@agilitylogistics.com.

لتكون مرجعا لكم ، ونحن أيضا ربط آخر س + وحول القضية أدناه. ويحدونا الأمل في أن هذه الوثيقة ، إلى جانب الموارد على موقع اتصالات نزاع قانوني ، وسوف تساعدك على إشراك أصحاب المصلحة بمعلومات دقيقة يتناول المسائل والشواغل.


أسئلة وأجوبة ذات صلة للولايات المتحدة حكومة المنازعات القانونية (5 يوليو 2010)


ما هي الحالة حول؟

في نوفمبر 2009 ، وزارة العدل أعلنت لائحة اتهام من شركة المخازن العمومية عن الشحن الزائد المزعومة للحكومة الامريكية في اتصال مع العقد لشركة المخازن العمومية البائع رئيس لتوريد المواد الغذائية للقوات الامريكية في العراق والكويت.

ما هو موقف الشركة؟

هذا هو الخلاف عقد يست قضية جنائية. أسعار الشركة ، ولم يتم الكشف عن جميع اختيارها من الموردين ، والممارسات التجارية لوالتي وافقت عليها وكالة الدفاع اللوجستية ، والذي هو العميل حكومة الولايات المتحدة للحصول على العقد البائع الوزراء.

وماذا عن أداء الشركة على هذا العقد؟

أداء شركة المخازن العمومية على هذا العقد لم تكن أبدا في النزاع. لمدة سبع سنوات ، قدمت شركة المخازن العمومية الاستثنائية لخدمة القوات وقيمة متفوقة لدافعي الضرائب. من جانب معايير صناعة الغذاء الرئيسية ، وأداء الشركة في warzone يتجاوز أداء الموردين العاملة في السوق المحلي في الولايات المتحدة. مرارا الشركة معترف بها للتميز من قبل العملاء في الحكومة الأميركية. الجنرال ديفيد بتريوس خص يخرج بنا عن الثناء ، وشركة المخازن العمومية قائلا ان "تنفيذ معجزة في انحاء العراق."

لماذا محاولة لتسوية إذا كانت الشركة لديها قضية قوية القانونية؟

وأضرت هذه القضية بالغة دفاعنا الأعمال والحكومة المتعاقدة. لأنها ولدت عدم اليقين في أوساط المساهمين والموظفين والعملاء ، ويرجع ذلك جزئيا انتشرت المنافسين التجاريين الشائعات والمعلومات الخاطئة. ونود أن إزالة هذا الشك وإعادة بناء دفاعنا والعمل الحكومي.

ماذا تفعل الشركة بعد أن تعلمت من وزارة العدل للتحقيق؟

تعاونت شركة المخازن العمومية على مدى عامين من خلال توفير ملايين الصفحات من الوثائق وإجابات مفصلة على الأسئلة المحددة التي طرحت وزارة العدل حول العقد الغذاء.

وبالإضافة إلى ذلك ، حاولت الشركة إلى حل المسألة عن طريق اتخاذ إلى لوحة جيش الولايات المتحدة نداءات العقد ، واقتراح وساطة طرف ثالث. منعت وزارة العدل أو رفض تلك الجهود.


وماذا عن مطالبة وزارة العدل أن الشركة هي "الهارب"؟

الهاربين الفرار. شركة المخازن العمومية والقتال. والشركة هي تقديم الحجج القانونية في المحكمة ، وتصر على حقوقها وطلبت من المحكمة للتأكد من وزارة العدل الامريكية يلي القانون. وخلاصة القول هي ان وزارة العدل تسعى لتجريم نزاع حول العقد.

نضع في اعتبارنا أنه في حين أن كل هذا يجري ، ونحن الاستمرار في تقديم لزبائننا. في ذروة العنف في العراق ، حافظت نحن ذاهبون. وقتل ثلاثة وثلاثون من زملائنا وأصيب المئات عندما وضعوا حياتهم على المحك لتقديم للقوات الامريكية. ونحن لم نكن التخلي عن البعثة بعد ذلك ، ونحن لا التخلي عنها الآن. استمر العمل لدينا ، دون انقطاع من هذه القضية وعدم الانتقاص من حيث مستوى الخدمة ونحن نقدم. الجنود والمتعاقدين في العراق والكويت الاعتماد علينا في كل يوم. نحن لم نخذلهم ، ونحن لن -- بغض النظر عن ما يحدث في هذه الحالة.


لقد سمعت أن تم أيضا بعض المديرين التنفيذيين تعليق من جانب الحكومة الامريكية. ما هو تأثير ذلك على الشركة أو عملائها؟


لا يوجد أي أثر لهذه المعلقات الفردية القائمة على عقود الحكومة الأمريكية أو على أعمالنا التجارية. وعلقت وامتدادا لهذه الادعاءات القديمة لبعض الناس يعتبر "الشركات التابعة" لشركة المخازن العمومية. ونرى أن هذا الإجراء بأنه واحد في سلسلة من المحاولات للضغط على شركة المخازن العمومية ولدعم قضية قانونية ضعيفة.

ماذا يعني أن شركة المخازن العمومية والشركات التابعة المختلفة على قائمة الحكومة الامريكية الأطراف مستثنى؟

وعلقت مؤقتا أي الشركة التي هي على قائمة الأطراف المستبعدة من الفوز التجارية الجديدة حكومة الولايات المتحدة. هذا التعليق لا ينطبق على حكومة الولايات المتحدة الحالية عقود. وبعبارة أخرى ، في حين أن شركة المخازن العمومية غير قادر على الفوز الجديد العمل الحكومي حتى يتم حل هذه القضية ، فإنه يمكن (ولا) الاستمرار في تنفيذ مختلف العقود على أن تتولى حاليا مع الحكومة الامريكية. هذا التعليق ليس لديها آثار على الأعمال التجارية مع عملاء تجاريين. هذا التعليق ينطبق فقط على العقود الحكومية في الولايات المتحدة.


هل تعمل مع أجيليتي يسبب أي قلق قانونية أو الامتثال للنقل والإمداد العالمية المتكاملة (جيل) للعملاء في الولايات المتحدة؟

رقم لا توجد مخاوف على الإطلاق الامتثال للعملاء غيل في الولايات المتحدة أو أي جزء آخر من العالم. وعلقت أجيليتي من الفوز التجارية الجديدة حكومة الولايات المتحدة. هذا التعليق لا ينطبق إلا على حكومة الولايات المتحدة التجارية. النزاع القانوني ليست له آثار التجارية للعملاء أو الأعمال التجارية.


هل هناك أي احتمال ان الحكومة الامريكية سوف مصادرة أو وقف الشحن بلدي في الولايات المتحدة إذا كنت تستخدم أجيليتي؟

قطعا لا. هذا الخلاف القانوني ليس له أي تأثير على الإطلاق على أي نوع من الأعمال التي لم يتم تمويلها مباشرة من قبل حكومة الولايات المتحدة


ونقلت الصحيفة عن محامي الشركة قوله ان القضية قد تضر. ماذا كان يعني؟


أن محامي يمثل الفرعية الدفاع الأمريكية أجيليتي للخدمات الحكومية و-- وليس شركة المخازن العمومية في حد ذاته. وكان يشير إلى مجموعة من رجال الاعمال أسهم دبي للذهب والضرر الذي أسهم دبي للذهب وعانت نتيجة لهذه الحالة. الأضرار التي لحقت أسهم دبي للذهب وخطير لا يمكن إنكاره. هذه الحالة يمنع من متابعة أسهم دبي للذهب عقود جديدة لحكومة الولايات المتحدة ، التي كانت تعتبر اكبر مصدر للايرادات أسهم دبي للذهب.

لا تشارك أجيليتي غيل مجموعة من رجال الاعمال والشركات التجارية بنيتها التحتية في العملية القانونية. فهي ليست موضوعا لأية ادعاءات. استمروا في أداء للعملاء الحاليين وتحقيق فرص جديدة واعدة.

قد تضاءل شيئا عن هذه القضية من المزايا التنافسية الفريدة شركة المخازن العمومية : نقدم بصمة واحدة من نوعها عالميا ، وقدرات عالية التخصص ، والخدمة الشخصية الاستثنائية ، والحلول المبتكرة. هذه المزايا تجلب لنا عملاء جدد ومساعدتنا على توظيف أفضل المواهب في هذه الصناعة.

لماذا نفعل مقالات وبيانات صحفية التعرف على الشركة وشركة المخازن العمومية ، بدلا من أجيليتي؟

اختارت وزارة العدل أن أشير إلى شركة المخازن العمومية كما في وثائق المحكمة الأولية ، على الرغم من أنها قد تستخدم في بعض الأحيان ، وشركة المخازن العمومية «أجيليتي» بالتبادل. وكانت الشركة الأم لشركات تابعة أجيليتي مختلف اسم "شركة المخازن العمومية ،" وهي الشركة الأم التي تتولى عقد البائع الوزراء. وقد وجهت وزارة العدل الادعاءات الموجهة ضد ثلاثة كيانات الشركات. تلك الكيانات هي الأصل الشركات (شركة المخازن العمومية) ؛ تابعة للشركة أسهم دبي للذهب اجيليتي ومقرها الكويت ، والولايات المتحدة وهي شركة تابعة لشركة أجيليتي أسهم دبي للذهب.

كيف تم هذا النزاع المتضررة أجيليتي غيل؟

أجيليتي الأعمال التجارية هو جيل. العملاء الأساسيين لها وغيرها من الشركات. جيل أساسية الأعمال التجارية والعملاء في قطاع الأعمال الأساسية لا تتأثر هذه القضية.

خارج مجال من هذه المجالات الأساسية ، فقد استفادت جيل من العمل الجماعي مع أسهم دبي للذهب. على بعض العقود الحكومية ، أسهم دبي للذهب يستخدم غيل كمقاول من الباطن أو فرق مع غيل كشريك في المشاريع المشتركة. لأن أسهم دبي للذهب لم يكن قادرا على أن يتابع عمل الحكومة الجديدة الولايات المتحدة ، لم يكن هناك عمل جديدة للغيل في هذا المجال محدودة.

كيف يؤثر هذا النزاع العميل غيل التجارية؟

القضية ليس لها أي تأثير على الاطلاق على غيل عملاء التجاريين. لا يوجد سبب قانوني لماذا عميل تجاري لا يمكن التعامل مع أجيليتي. حالة يمنع أجيليتي من الفوز بعقود جديدة حكومة الولايات المتحدة. فإنه لا يمنع من العمل في أجيليتي الحالي على عقود من الحكومة الامريكية. والأهم من ذلك ، فإنه لا يمنع -- أو تسعى إلى منع من القيام بأي نوع آخر من التعامل مع أي طرف أجيليتي --.

 

[رجل مبتدئ]

الصانع: محاكمة «أجيليتي» في الكويت


قال المحامي رياض الصانع إن «القضاء الكويتي هو المختص بمحاكمة شركة أجيليتي». وأضاف: نعلم أن شركة اجيليتى تقوم بتوريد أغذية لمصلحة الجيش الأميركي الموجود في الكويت، إلا أن محكمة أميركية اتهمتها في نوفمبر الماضي بتهم الاحتيال على الحكومة الأميركية في عقود تصل قيمتها إلى مليارات الدولارات لتوريد أغذية للجيش الموجود في الكويت. غير أن اجيليتى لجأت الى الملاذ الآمن لها في الكويت. وتؤكد عدم خضوعها للقوانين أو المحاكم الأميركية، وصرح الناشط السياسي والمحامي رياض الصانع أن الضرورة اقتضت الخروج على مبدأ الإقليمية، وهو ما فعله المشرع الكويتي في الفقرة الثانية من المادة 11 والمادة 12 من قانون الجزاء - فالمادة 11 في فقرتها الثانية تنص «تسري على كل شخص يرتكب خارج إقليم الكويت فعلا يجعله فاعلا أصليا أو شريكا في جريمة وقعت كلها او بعضها في إقليم الكويت» ولو تأملنا هذا الاستثناء لوجدناه تطبيقا لقاعدة الإقليمية مادام السبب في خضوع هذا الشخص للقانون الكويتي هو وقوع الجريمة كلها أو بعضها في إقليم الكويت وتوابعه. ولا شك أن جريمة الاحتيال وقعت بعد توريد الأغذية للجيش الأميركي في الكويت، صحيح أن أخذ المليارات من الدولارات تم بتحويل الحكومة للأموال إلى الكويت إلا أن الجريمة الأصلية وقعت في الكويت، الأمر الذي يكون مفاده خضوع تلك الشركة للقانون الكويتي تطبيقا لمبدأ الأقلية.

 

[ليث متواضع]

هذا اخر ايميل اندز من ادارة اجيليتي يوضح وضع الشركة في تاريخ 6-7-2010 :
This message was sent to Agility, DGS, GIL and Infrastructure leadership, to DGS-all, Kuwait-all, and to key communications contacts.

We recognize that employees, customers, and partners have ongoing questions related to the Prime Vendor legal case. Going forward, Connections will be the primary resource for providing updates related to the case.

In order to receive up to date information about the latest status, please continue to check the legal dispute dedicated resource page on Connections. You can access this site by clicking here, or from the front page of Connections. If you are unable to find the answer you are looking for, you can also email: contractdisputehotline@agilitylogistics.com.

For your reference, we are also attaching the latest Q+A about the case below. We hope that this document, along with the resources on the Connections legal dispute site, will help you engage stakeholders with accurate information that addresses their questions and concerns.


Questions and Answers Related to the US Government Legal Dispute (July 5, 2010)


What is the case about?

In November 2009, the Department of Justice announced an indictment of PWC for alleged overcharging the US government in connection with the PWC’s Prime Vendor contract to supply food for U.S. troops in Iraq and Kuwait.

What’s the Company’s position?

This is a contract dispute not a criminal matter. The Company’s prices, its choice of suppliers, and its business practices were all disclosed to and approved by the Defense Logistics Agency, which is the U.S. government customer for the Prime Vendor contract.

What about the Company’s performance on this contract?

PWC’s performance on this contract has never been in dispute. For seven years, PWC has provided exceptional service to troops and superior value to taxpayers. By key food-industry benchmarks, the Company’s performance in a warzone exceeds the performance of suppliers operating in the domestic U.S. market. The Company has repeatedly been recognized for excellence by its U.S. government customer. Gen. David Petraeus singled us out for praise, saying PWC had “performed a miracle across Iraq.”

Why try to settle if the Company has a strong legal case?

This case has badly damaged our defense and government contracting business. It has generated uncertainty among shareholders, employees and customers, in part because commercial competitors have spread rumors and false information. We would like to remove that uncertainty and rebuild our defense and government business.

What did the Company do after it learned of the Department of Justice investigation?

PWC cooperated over a two-year period by providing millions of pages of documents and detailed answers to specific questions that the Department of Justice posed about the food contract.

In addition, the Company tried to resolve the matter by taking it to a U.S. Army contract appeals board and proposing third-party mediation. The Department of Justice blocked or rejected those efforts.


What about the Department of Justice’s claim that the Company is a “fugitive”?

Fugitives flee. PWC is fighting. The Company is presenting its legal arguments in court, insisting on its rights and asking the court to make sure the Department of Justice follows U.S. law. The bottom line is that the Department of Justice is trying to criminalize a contract dispute.

Keep in mind that while all this is going on, we continue delivering for our customers. At the height of violence in Iraq, we kept going. Thirty-three of our colleagues were killed and hundreds injured when they put their lives on the line to deliver for U.S. forces. We did not abandon the mission then, and we aren’t abandoning it now. Our work has continued, uninterrupted by this case and undiminished in terms of the level of service we are providing. Troops and contractors in Iraq and Kuwait count on us every day. We have never let them down, and we won’t – regardless of what transpires in this case.


I have heard that some executives have also been suspended by the U.S. government. What impact does this have on the company or its customers?


There is no impact of these individual suspensions on existing U.S. government contracts or on our commercial business. The suspensions are an extension of the old allegations to certain people deemed “affiliates” of PWC. We view this action as one in a series of attempts to exert pressure on PWC and to shore up a weak legal case.

What does it mean that PWC and various affiliate companies are on the US government’s Excluded Parties List?

Any company that is on the Excluded Parties List is temporarily suspended from winning new US government business. This suspension does not apply to existing US government contracts. In other words, while PWC is unable to win new government business until this case is resolved, it can (and does) continue to perform on various contracts that it currently holds with the US government. This suspension has no implications for commercial business with commercial customers. This suspension applies only to US government contracts.


Does working with Agility cause any legal or compliance concerns for Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) customers in the United States?

No. There are no compliance concerns whatsoever for GIL customers in the United States or any other part of the world. Agility is suspended from winning new US government business. This suspension applies only to US government business. The legal dispute has no implications for commercial customers or commercial business.


Is there any possibility that the US government will impound or stop my freight in the United States if I use Agility?

Absolutely not. This legal dispute has no impact whatsoever on any type of business that is not directly funded by the US government


A Company lawyer was quoted as saying that the case has been damaging. What did he mean?


That lawyer represents a U.S. subsidiary of Agility Defense & Government Services – not PWC itself. He was referring to the DGS business group and the damage that DGS has suffered as a result of this case. The damage to DGS is serious and undeniable. This case prevents DGS from pursuing new U.S. government contracts, which were the biggest source of DGS revenue.

Agility’s GIL commercial business group and its infrastructure businesses are not involved in the legal process. They aren’t the subject of any allegations. They continue to perform for existing customers and pursue promising new opportunities.

Nothing about this case has diminished PWC’s unique competitive advantages: We offer a one-of-a-kind global footprint, highly specialized capabilities, extraordinary personal service, and innovative solutions. Those advantages bring us new customers and help us recruit the best talent in the industry.

Why do news articles and press releases identify the Company as PWC, instead of Agility?

The Department of Justice chose to refer to the Company as PWC in initial court papers, although it has sometimes used PWC and Agility interchangeably. The parent company of the various Agility subsidiaries has had the name “The Public Warehousing Company,” and it is the parent company that holds the Prime Vendor contract. The Justice Department has leveled allegations against three corporate entities. Those entities are the corporate parent (PWC); the Company’s Kuwait-based Agility DGS subsidiary; and a U.S. subsidiary of Agility DGS.

How has this dispute affected Agility GIL?

Agility GIL’s business is commercial. Its core customers are other businesses. GIL’s core commercial business and core business customers are unaffected by the case.

Outside of those core areas, GIL has benefitted from its teamwork with DGS. On some government contracts, DGS uses GIL as a subcontractor or teams with GIL as a joint venture partner. Because DGS has not been able to pursue new U.S. government work, there has been no new work for GIL in that limited area.

How does this dispute affect a GIL commercial customer?

The case has no effect at all on GIL commercial customers. There is no legal reason why a commercial customer cannot do business with Agility. The case prevents Agility from winning new U.S. government contracts. It doesn’t prevent Agility from working on its current U.S. government contracts. And most important, it does not prevent – or seek to prevent – Agility from doing any other kind of business with any party.

ننتظر

 

[طنش تعش]

[8:34:33] ِ.تشكيل مجلس ادارة شركة المخازن العمومية
يعلن سوق الكويت للأوراق المالية بأن شركة المخازن العمومية (اجيليتي)‏
افادته بأنه بناء على اجتماع الجمعية العمومية العادية المنعقدة في 10-6-10‏
والذي تم فيه انتخاب اعضاء مجلس ادارة الشركة فقد تم تشكيل مجلس ادارة
الشركة على النحو التالي:‏
السيد / طارق عبدالعزيز سلطان العيسى رئيس المجلس والعضو المنتدب
السيد / حسين علي حسين الخرافي نائب رئيس مجلس الادارة
السيد / جميل سلطان العيسى عضو
السيد / ايمن بدر سلطان العيسى عضو
السيد / ناصر محمد فهد الراشد عضو
السيد / عصام خليل محمد الرفاعي عضو
السيد / عادل محمد بدر البدر عضو ‏

 

[mohieddin]

أجيليتى
شارت أسبوعى

 

[mohieddin]

أجيليتى
شارت شهرى

 

[بروكركويتي]

للرفع

 

[بلاحدود]

عيب أجليليتي تكون بالصفحة الثالثة!!


للــرفع..

ما هي آخر تطورات القضية مع الأمريكان؟