The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from WS Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Thanks - they always have adverts on the radio for financial mis-selling so perhaps I’ll take a look. And I agree with you RR, that with this 12 month solvency rule, we may yet come out of all this with some in the bank.
NDA not bad! Sorry starrage
Starrage - which solicitors did you use? Have you completed the action and settled? Have you signed an bad?
Starrage, you've sued cairns? How did that go?
Overall, if Frr can sign the declaration on paying off L/Notes in 12 mths & court are happy on it then at moment that is most important thing of which should find out late Tues/Weds morning.
Will say what mentioned earlier & that is Hopeless has not really put in a defence against claim by Frr. On that it has be said that he has in a way admitted that in a court document.
"The New Notes are issued by Frontera International Corporation, a fully-owned subsidiary of the Company, and bear interest rate of 10 per cent. if paid in cash or 12 per cent. if paid in-kind with additional notes at the Company's election." And there is a reminder of how we got ourselves locked in. In my mind it was Frontera's choice, i.e. the company's choice in the above announcement, to pay in kind with additional notes at an interest rate of 12%. Surely if this all goes horribly wrong for us share holder we have grounds to sue. Not sure how or who though.
Star - See Hopes Response Page 4/21 Lines 1 -8. He is a note holder to FIC and the balance is over $30m. He is not the only note holder under that agreement. The same paragraph states 'payment default since at least September 2018' which is 7 months. How does that equate to $8m in interest? Furthermore, when court cases or defaults are triggered I'm not sure that interest keeps on accumulating (one for the lawyers on here).
Keep up the great work Madp - much appreciated here! :-)
Star - We had this argument on the 12th May. The other $8m is owed to the other holders of the loan notes, ZM and SN. SH/O is owed $22.9m.
I would be worried if their response (assuming they make one) has no reference to the solvency declaration as that has to be a trump card for us in terms of educating the judge around commerciality. Unless the solvency Dec relies solely on personal wealth of the Directors
28 May, is Tuesday.
Agreed, this seems highly plausible theory. The other bonus if this is a correct is that it means the Durham loan potentially fell through due to de-listing, rather than due diligence findings (oil flows not hitting the numbers). Of everything I’ve read this seems most likely and would certainly explain the delaying tactics.
ODR - was thinking the same, hopefully it will be covered in FRRs 30/5 response to the court? So next Friday morning unless they produce earlier (not sure any point on waiting to last minute as Hope doesn’t get option to respond to this one).
Fingers crossed for a happy ending. Shareholders stand to lose fortunes and peoples jobs and securities are on the line has well all because of legalised robbery. Vulture funds that stifle companies pretty much the same as what banks do lend at the start then take away funding then take the companies assets. Gla not long to go
On as far as the declaration is concerned Frr need to show that paying off the L/Notes looks good, maybe very good over the 12mths.
If above is confirmed the claim already looks to be in Frr's favour, as most if not all hopes defense has been on saying that Frr have defaulted & the claim, is not really about that, but about him carrying out his duties as a member of the BOD.
Above, is how I see it.
They need some strong evidence that's all I'm going to say.
On Frr winning their claim against Hopeless then anything awarded to them can go towards the pay off or maybe pay off the L/Notes completely & still have a nice looking amount of $s left.
In the end though we need to see that Frr have signed the declaration to the court by Tuesday 28 May & on that coming about then Frr should be looking to be in a fairly strong position for the claim, if not strong one.
No matter what we say on here it all comes down to how the judge sees it and he has to follow the law. Whatever is written in that contract is legally binding he has to follow what the law stipulates otherwise theres no point in having rules and regulations. Gla
Madp
Agree that if Frr can show the court that it can pay off L/Notes within 12mths or pay the the amount into Escrow then the full trial will be down to the Frr claim against Hope & its cronies.
Your right, I did miss the point. Thank you.
Gipps - Your missing the point. IMHO as FRR required SH/O off the board, they gave him the opportunity to liquidate FRCC, which first required his resignation. IMHO this was the risk to FRR in allowing the liquidation process to be initiated. If FRR get as far as the trial, then IMHO they will have shown that they can pay the $22.9m within 12 months or they will have paid it already into Escrow. As long as FRR are certain the debt owed to SH/O is covered, then even if they lose the case against SH/O there is no risk of losing Block 12. IMHO the trial is then just about winning damages off SH/O, with the only risk to FRR being to lose and have to pay the court costs.
Madpunter.
Oopsi said he would never advise a client that they would have a better than 70% chance of winning. I would not be happy with a 30% chance of losing in open court and I dont believe Zaza would take that risk. . It would certainly put us in the driving seat to get a good deal though.
I think Goit has hit the nail on the head.
1 - back in December the plan was to get Hope off the board and pay him off via the Durham loan.
2 - Starage listed all the docs on this BB which highlighted the mis-information re the interest payment, causing the Nomad to resign. Hope it seems then acted to ensure we were unable to get a new Nomad. On this basis, the Durham loan fell through.
3 - without a Nomad we entered in to a delaying game, making regular money from the wells and finding new money via the $150m loan
4 - as MadPunter says, the plan is now to prove solvency and then come back in some form. And as others have explained, the solvency issue is now the real key to our survival.
GLA
As someone mentioned on here I think the original Plan B was the durham loan, which, i'm guessing got thwarted by the unexpected delisting of the shares. Win or lose we would of had the money to pay Hope off and maybe some bonus money from the fiduciary case. Since delisting, it looks like we've been riding the wave and I'm guessing trying to buy time to get another loan (or a better option). Showing that FRR can get 150mil loan solves the solvency issue immediately but it may be on very unfavorable terms but lets face it, most would rather lose a leg than be on the chopping block. Let's hope the production numbers and scaling that can be achieved in the 12 months can easily service the debt already. The extra time bought by all the legal fiasco has definitely allowed work on the ground to progress still - if nothing else, strengthening FRR's position.
I seem to remember one of the emails posted on here that came before the others regarding the loans, where Hope is asking about the fire-sale price of the assets. Whether or not it was chronologically before the veto'd loan talk I cannot remember. I would say that is a pretty strong piece of evidence of his lack of fiduciary concerns for the company, specially if that is his first solution to FRR's financial problems...
Both sides seem to be claiming they were triumphant in the Caymans, it would be interesting to actually know the real story there.
Painful ODR, just goes to show what a perilous position we are in here, whether those of us that are trying to stay positive choose to believe it or not.
GL ODR