Lines Overseas Management has told a US court that it will be unable to disclose certain information requested by an American subpoena because of a Bermuda Supreme Court injunction.

For almost two years, LOM has been engaged in a court battle with the US Securities and Exchange Commission over the enforcement of administrative subpoenas for information related to alleged securities fraud linked to bulletin board listed securities SHEP Technologies Inc. and Sedona Software Solutions Inc.

LOM and its managing director Scott Lines, who was announced as the company?s new president last week, claimed that they fully cooperated with the SEC through their own regulators however in some cases they argued they would be breaching confidentiality laws in Bermuda, the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands if they turned over client records. The Bermuda-based company also argued that the US court did not have jurisdiction over it or its Bermudian Mr. Lines.

The company did not have much success with either argument in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, but in a notice filed with that court last Friday, LOM said the Court of Appeal of Bermuda ?vindicated LOM?s positioning ? expressed repeatedly in this proceed ? that this case presents serious issues of international comity?.

The Bermuda court of ?competent jurisdiction? had enjoined LOM and its managing director from disclosing to the SEC recordings, transcripts, summaries or excerpts of telephone conversations by Brian Lines, and or interviews undertaken by a Bermuda Monetary Authority inspector in a parallel investigation into Sedona Software Solutions, LOM said in its filing to the US District Court.

?To the extent that the SEC?s subpoena calls for the production of such materials, LOM is unable to comply with these aspects of the subpoena,? LOM said.

LOM had previously expressed concern that the SEC would seek to compel it to produce all materials requested under subpoena through a contempt of court proceeding.

It said in its notice to the court: ?It would be flatly at odds with settled principles of international comity for this court to adopt the SEC?s position.?

It pointed to precedent that ?domestic courts not take action that may cause the violation of another nation?s laws...? and asked the court to clarify that ?LOM cannot be required to comply with the SEC?s subpoena to the extent that doing so would force LOM to violate foreign law?.