You now have access to the new London South East Beta Website, Click Here



Register
Login:
Share:
Email Facebook Twitter


Tower Resources keep all options open including Njonji farm-in deal
Tech company Mporium delivers an outstanding set of Q1 results says CEO De Groot


Frontera Resources Share Chat (FRR)



There is currently no data for Frontera Resources.


Share Discussion for Frontera Resources


Thread View

Please login or register to post a message on Share Chat.

Posts per page:

RainbowRider
Posts: 2,885
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
Re : AJ.....
Today 16:47
Sweet Dreams are made of this !

Have a great weekend Guys.
RR
 
LordLash
Posts: 2,046
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 16:22
Having the fiduciary duties cases heard by jury in California is a positive, isn't it? We do need the injunction case to go our way, but isn't that likely as the two cases will be seen as interlinked?
Coggy
Posts: 15,329
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 16:18
Tsb's, I'm like you

I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure!
erazzel
Posts: 2,613
Premium Chat Member
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 16:12
Agreed - It doe snot read well unfortunately.

Perhaps there is something not available for the sleuths to find.

Why have the shorters et all not been so loud?
Tsbs
Posts: 9,426
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 16:09
tbh it sounds like we have a uphill task to keep frr as it is. I was feeling hopeful this morning now im back keeping fingers crossed

It seems like zaza has taken a massive gamble
welloilbeefooked
Posts: 276
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Posted last week
Today 16:00
Hi Riptonk,
I signed up too and I've had a reply from the site saying they've been inundated with people requesting this but there are no cameras allowed in a federal court case :(
Timster
Posts: 5,578
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:59
Thanks oopsi

Very likely this will drag on till may/June perhaps longer then.

GLA have a great weekend
Oopsi
Posts: 55
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:53
Pophead

You usually gather evidence in advance of starting proceedings. Of course new evidence can come to light during the disclosure process or from third parties as the case progresses which we didn't have at the outset. For example, disclosure of all internal emails Hope sent around the time FRR were looking to re-finance - those would be of interest and may unearth something. There is no way FRR would have access to those at the outset.

Timster - there is a reason why the majority of cases don't reach a hearing and that is because no one can discount litigation risk. You have to factor in strength of your case/defence, the money at stake, the implications for you, reputational issues, costs (including costs you may have to pay) against the prize you are seeking. As a rule of thumb, I have never advised a client even with the strongest case that they have more than a 70% chance of success.
Timster
Posts: 5,578
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:43
Great post oopsi, in your opinion would hope and outrider do everything they can now to avoid a hearing? The way I read it it certainly sounds like they could well have thier business destroyed when it was them attempting to destroy FRR.
Does seem like a fight to the death and FRR going this far would suggest to me that they are ready for a court hearing and not an oocs.
But as always it's just guesswork
AJamesW
Posts: 1,885
Opinion:Hold
Price:0.00
RE: Update
Today 15:43
PH because it is open, to interpretation and directives from HMRC
H&L are one of the largest Nominee holders of shares. They also keep strictly to the rules, dates and times. I was given a date the share needed to be moved to a share account, and or a certificate at cost. Mine are still electronic.
With half in My SIP and the other half in the share account. It’s this latter account which could cause me tax problems (given the last 4 months a nice place to be in)
The share has to relist before it can be Bed and ISAed and only up to your remaining ISA allowance. The problem is if it relists with 2&16 as a JV what price will each share be before it Breakfasts, a lot more than .28p I would suggest.
Mitigation follows, SIP limited to unused earnings from the last three years up to a maximum of 40K per year.
Problems I know, but miles better than cancelled shares and sweet fanny Addams.
mapp
Posts: 2,284
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
David Attenborough born in 1926
Today 15:40
so is the Queen. Mapp, the most filtered FRR investor who
naively believed that AIM is for INVESTORS.
AIM Boards are for dumpers, pumpers, trolls, illiterates,
teenagers , the lonely and depressed who are not filtered.
Absolutely Impossible Market. AIM.
pophead
Posts: 338
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:38
Oopsi do you believe that FRR could still have significant evidence? Is it possible legally that we come this far and for what ever reason there is more evidence that we do not know of? If there is not more evidence then surely it makes a mockery of ZAZA stating we do not go to court unless we are very sure of winning. Do the legal team only present what is needed at each stage of the proceedings?
Oopsi
Posts: 55
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:36
It's a good point Daniel1son. A lot of time is often spent on jurisdictional issues. Why? Because it can put your opponent at a significant disadvantage. Our summons cites case law which effectively states why the hearing should be heard in Californian - mainly because this is where Outrider is based. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the Defendant argues otherwise on jurisdiction grounds (probably to avoid a jury trial). I suspect that's why we had a half day hearing in Cayman for the amended summons because Outrider objected. It was probably in there interests to keep the action in Cayman. It's all guesswork on my part I have to admit in the absence of documentation.

Tsbs - again pure conjecture by me but rather than lifting the injunction, it has been stayed (ie suspended). The quid pro quo of staying the Cayman proceedings may well have been the judge saying we lose the benefit of the injunction. Contrary to what others have said, Justice Kawaley was not keen on the prospects of success on the merits of our case. His comments on APPEALING are something different in relation to prospects of success. These comments on the merits worried me as judges give you strong signals at the outset of the way they are thinking. If I was advising FRR I would have told them that their chances of success were limited. It was a brave move by FRR switching to California but I certainly think that it was the right move. It's like a football manager who doesn't change his tactics or team when they are getting battered in the hope that something will change. Better to switch to a back four, front three or whatever and chuck on a couple of subs than to do nothing. For what it's worth, I think it was the right move. The hard part is seeing if the Californian courts agree with us. My only niggle is that reading the amended summons we say that there isn't much difference between Cayman and Californian law. But it's not always about the merits and as I said above, forum counts. A jury trial is a different proposition, particularly in the States. I always warn clients that no matter how strong their case, it will depend on the view and attitude of the judge and that is litigation risk. Magnify that by 20 for a jury. Hope will know that. That's why the collateral agreement excludes a jury trial.
mapp
Posts: 2,284
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
Judge Richard Seeborg, Wikipedia
Today 15:23
born 4th Nov 1956. He looks friendly and intelligent. I am sure he is
determined and perfect for FRR.
I am getting ready to sort out my Financial Mess. I became headless
and helpless for AIM is tremendous and most certainly not for sensible
investors who have to play it safe.
Tsbs
Posts: 9,426
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:21
wouldn't fancy hitting a bump in the road like this one

The car would disintegrate
FinnFCR
Posts: 325
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Richard Attenborough comments :
Today 15:19
I’m assuming that was mapp or RR, filtered both yesterday, only 2 people I have on filter. Nothing personal just the pointless drivel got beyond a joke
Timster
Posts: 5,578
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Richard Attenborough comments :
Today 15:14
WTF!!

I'm filtered I know, but when there is nothing to discuss you post reams of shite.
Now there is something to discuss you post less bit still shite!!
Don't get it....
Tsbs
Posts: 9,426
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:13
so for a layman to understand

Does this all mean that the caymans have now lifted the injunction in the caymans and hope/maples have been able to proceed with trying to get the asset from frr so they have now issued basically the same process in the Californian court
If so why didn't they go there originally or is that a silly question

Also , from reading the documents has hope tricked his way into being a director of frr
pophead
Posts: 338
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:12
Thanks Oopsi. That absolutely clears things for me. We really are still non the wiser and I just hope there is the evidence to get that document signed.
daniel1son
Posts: 241
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:11
Great post Oopsi.

If you get a chance, have a look at the docs, I've uploaded the dropbox link on here.

There was a reference in the motion for a restraining order brief in relation to our Caymans battle. It appears that there is some confusion as to exactly which jurisdiction should be responsible for this law suit. Whilst the companies are Caymans registered, FRR are arguing that the business is conducted mainly out of California.

Not sure what that means entirely, except from being able to bring a trial by jury, and put more pressure on Hope as you've mentioned.

Personally, I'm fully expecting a temporary restraining order to be issued, following in the steps of the Caymans process. It really does then crank things up if we do get a restraining order, as I'm pretty sure neither side fancies the lottery of a jury decision.
Arsenal221
Posts: 34,630
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:06
Thanks for sharing the knowledge you have & your thoughts.
Oopsi
Posts: 55
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:04
Also look at the timings which are interesting. 14 April Frontera issue proceedings in California, 15 April hearing in Cayman, 17 April enforcement notices issued. What is odd is that we wait until 24 April to amend the summons to include injunctive relief proceedings. These injunctive proceedings are of the utmost importance to FRR and its very existence. I have injuncted the same night/next day in similar circumstances. I’m not an expert on the US legal system but 7 days in the circumstances is a long time. The amended summons for injunctive relief is virtually identical to the original summons filed in the Californian proceedings so not much extra work required there.

My guess is the delay was because they tried to work out a settlement but it appears that hasn’t proved possible. Once negotiations broke down , FRR had no alternative. So although on the face of it it appears that we are far away from resolving this matter the reality maybe that we are closer than people think.
Oopsi
Posts: 55
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 15:01
Steve

We effectively find ourselves in the same position we were in when we applied for injunctive relief before the Cayman courts. The difference on this occasion is that we are now at the mercy of the Californian courts.

As usual, there are more questions than answers. Some quick thoughts:

Why, if we had injunctive relief secured in Cayman (albeit temporarily) did we issue proceedings in California to go through the whole process again? I suspect this is because ultimately we felt that we would lose on the merits given the Judge’s initial comments. There may be an element of forum shopping here and we took legal advice in California which offered better chances of success/create more tactical pressure(jury trial). Hope’s enforcement notice is also a direct response to the issue of proceedings in California and shows the battle really hotting up. Had we not issued proceedings there, I doubt he would have taken these steps (after all he had the chance since the alleged default occurred on 10 October 2018 and he hadn’t). I just hope the advice we have on securing injunctive relief accords with the Judge’s view.

The $64,000 question is what is the current status of the proceedings in Cayman? If the injunction was still in force then I sincerely doubt that Hope would have been able to issue an enforcement notice in Cayman or take any insolvency steps given that Frontera Resources Caucasus Corporation is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. There are three possible scenarios. The first that the injunction has been discharged. I don’t think this is plausible as the matter does not appear to have reached the Court of Appeal. The second is that Hope is ignoring the injunction and will rely on proceedings in California. That just seems plain daft. Thirdly, and the view that seems most plausible at the moment, is that the Cayman proceedings, including the injunction, have been stayed. This makes more sense given that there was a hearing for an adjourned summons in Cayman and the Californian proceedings were issued just before the hearing of the adjourned summons in Cayman. This theory also has credence because not once in the amended Californian summons do we reference the Cayman injunction and there being a breach of those terms. It also explains why Maples (Cayman based) have now issued the enforcement notice as if there was an injunction in place, I would assume (although I haven’t seen the terms of the injunction) it would apply to third parties and Maples/Outrider would be in contempt if it took steps in contravention of the injunction.

I think we will know one way or another very soon – injunctive proceedings are by their very nature urgent and it is even more pressing in this case. The Californian legal system seems transparent and expeditious so expect a hearing and decision very soon.
Dulwichman
Posts: 862
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Update
Today 15:01
Mine are still in my ISA account. Redmayne Bentley
Freeatlast
Posts: 2,199
Opinion:No Opinion
Price:0.00
RE: Court documents
Today 14:58
We're not used to information in 'real time'....are we.

Cayman's....you wait 30 days to see what happened two court cases ago.
California...we have pre-populated judgement forms on display to us, before a decision has been signed off.

No wonder all this court stuff is doing people's heads in .




Share Price, Share Chat, Stock Market news at lse.co.uk
FREE Member Services
- Setup a personalised Watchlist and Virtual Portfolio.
- Gain access to LIVE real-time Regulatory News (RNS).
- View more Trades, Directors' Deals, and Broker Ratings.
Share Price, Share Chat, Stock Market news at lse.co.uk









Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look. While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.