NEW YORK --  A U.S. businessman suing Grenada's Deputy Prime Minister Gregory Bowen and three men, refuses to give up, filing another motion for reconsideration of his case in New York.

Court records obtained show that attorneys for Jack J. Grynberg, RSM Production Corporation and Grynberg Petroleum Company, have refilled a motion for reconsideration of a judge's ruling on  September 28 that dismissed a motion against the Grenada Number Two Man.

The motion against Bowen, Mikhail Fridman, Len Blavatnik and Lev Korchagin, was filed on October 2, just days after US District Court Judge, Denise Cote, denied Grynberg's request to add a civil conspiracy claim in his lawsuit against Bowen.

Grynberg originally filed a complaint on November 1, 2006, charging Bowen with impropriety. He claimed that in September 1996, Bowen first indicated that he and officials of RSM were expected to make him bribe payments in order to conduct business with Grenada.

On April 27, 2004, the suit alleged that Bowen advised RSM that its April 14, 2004 application to the Government of Grenada for an oil and natural gas exploration license was untimely filed. On August 31, 2004, RSM claims it filed a Request for Arbitration with the World Bank's International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes to challenge the denial of its license application.

The case, filed in 2006, was dismissed because the court ruled it was "time barred." Grynberg's lawyers subsequently refiled another suit, arguing that their client had uncovered "substantial facts" concerning each of the four parties' involvement in a scheme to interfere with RSM's business in Grenada.

They argued that, "unlike their time-barred tort claims against Bowen, the conspiracy cause of action was timely because plaintiffs first became aware of the elements of a civil conspiracy against Bowen in early 2006, when Grynberg was informed that Bowen was taking bribes from defendants Len Blavatnik and Mikhail Fridman, and that these defendants were funding Grenada's legal fees and expenses in the ICSID arbitration."

But Bowen's attorney retorted that "the conspiracy cause of action is not meaningfully different from the time-barred tort causes of action, and that plaintiffs' efforts to repackage their dismissed claims should be rejected."

Judge Cote agreed stating, "Permitting them to amend their complaint after disposition of Bowen's motion to dismiss, and thereby to bring Bowen back in as a party to this action, would effect precisely the sort of Œundue prejudice' a court must charily avoid."
Grynberg's lawyer, however, refiled a motion ŒTo Reconsider The Courts' Opinion Denying Leave To Amend Complaint Against Gregory Bowen.'

Attorney Daniel L. Abrams argues that the Court applied the wrong standard in denying their motion to amend their complaint against Bowen to allege civil conspiracy and erred in its judgment. A date has yet to be set for a new hearing on the matter.