Chris Heminway, Exec-Chair at Time To ACT, explains why now is the right time for the Group to IPO. Watch the video 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.
spike: I am afraid that this: 'good lawyers only take cases they will win' line just doesn't hold true alas. They just get rich whatever. My only other (albeit much smaller) investment was CHL and posters kept saying that we would win the all determining court action as Clifford Chance only take cases they will win. Well we lost everything ... although Clifford Chance weren't out of pocket and live (richer) to fight another day...
Gipps - The risk of FRR losing the lot is prior to a jury trial and the risk of SH/O losing the lot starts with the jury trial. IMHO if FRR get an injunction or pay $22.9m into Escrow, then they have no need for an OOCS.
Neither side will want a jury trial, if that’s what it’s heading towards that’s when an OOCS will be agreed. Neither side will risk losing the lot.
Yeah same to you let's hope we enjoy next Christmas unlike the last one
Ditto jester. I think it’s going to be a case of you bottles it first, bit like in a Wild West bar lol.
Have a good weekend
Spike I'm hoping they have something and hope gets himself in that deep he cant get out like setting a trap and they release the mother of all evidences. Fingers crossed...
Jester I agree, but as with any Contract there are implied terms which are not necessarily written, there are also reasons why the Contract may be defaulted, so the judge should and likely will slowly as look at the “intention at the point of signing the contract”. Clearly this intention changed, and legally it’s the intention of both parties at the point of signing. However, next week hopefully a bigger picture will become clear.
I must say, in all my time going over and reviewing contracts in my corporate days, I’ve never found a good legal firm that would take on a case with no hope of winning. The fact we have one of the best, and their reputation taking our case, you would like to think they see merits (somewhere...we hope!)
Suns out, it’s a long weekend and we are all healthy so enjoy the bank holiday, frr saga will no doubt continue long after this weekend lol
OLAD
Agree
Jester, what if it so happens that one party in a contract did everything possible to ensure that the other party couldn't carry out their own part of the deal?
Very well thought of piece by SB. Hope basically by his actions never gave the company a chance to grow. His conflict of interest here ha done the company no good. If you are a director of company the fiduciary duties you are entrusted with must be well carried out. You are like the father of a kid and as things go fathers don't look for all ways of killing their kids. Hope basically looked for all ways of killing FRR. The MND story should blow the mind of the jury no end and other sorts of stunts he pulled.
Let's see how the case goes, I see a lot of injustice in the whole thing which I expect the jury to deal with effectively. A director's duty is towards the company and its growth and progress. Nothing probably wrong with the veto power in that in the right hands it would only be used to disallow frivolous loans and not ones that should help the company progress .Hope abused that power and that should be easy to prove.
To me it looks like bye bye frr unless they make a discovery of damning evidence. Contract law is a written agreement between 2 parties if you break those promises within the agreement then you dont stand much chance in front of a judge. I've yet to see any compelling evidence that says wow go zaza and get the vulture. Only they know why they brought this court action will it be the end of frr a costly mistake? all will soon be revealed.
Part 2
This is a war to the end NOW, either it’s bye bye Outrider or bye bye FRR, no middle ground. Shame they couldn’t see a win-win situation. But what is clear from the submissions is that Hope was cheer leading for FRR to fail so he could exercise his plan.
JMO
I think it is important to note that FRR has always been in a precarious financial position and this is not a new phenomenon that Hope’s lawyers are trying to portray now. As an early O&G junior explorer, this is the modus operandi not just for FRR but for nearly all small oil companies. So for over 20-yrs, these incumbent long term Directors have balanced the books by honouring their fidicuary duties to employees and creditors (I can’t recall any legal action been brought against them, so great track record). In fact, historically speaking, they have personally financed the company when there was no other finance option available, which was subsequently converted to ordinary equity at a premium. How much Director RPNs converted? $26m. This is Directors level of commitment to their stakeholders. Then we know that Zaza offered a personal loan of $5m, but what did Hope offer? Sweet FA. Infact, Hope lawyers go back to claiming that Hopes actions were to protect Outrider and other creditors and therefore fulfilling his fiduciary duties. And this is going to be crux of the legal argument. Well, that cant be true, because if it was, he would have started raising these issues as soon as became the Director of FRR back in Feb 2017 and not from April last year. There are clear cut legal cases where a Director should excuse himself from Board discussions when he is conflicted, not use his veto power to protect his own position. This vulture is now arguing that he vetoed the proposals to protect creditors but did he then offer superior terms for his own $2m loan?
As far as Judge Kawaley’s comments are concerned on the financial state of FRR (and this shows how little he understands the early explorer industry), FRR has been in this financial state for over 20-yrs without any creditor not getting paid. Infact you could argue that over the 18months, FRR made more progress with new equity raised, progressing drilling operations and securing discussions with international heavyweights. I can also name at least half a dozen AIM O&G companies that have a similar financial position to FRR. And what about the Regulators such LSE who continually monitor these small companies.
Anyway, I think this is why FRR want a Jury trial because when the facts are heard, and Hope is exposed for the vulture that he is and how he has taken advantage of the opportunistic purchase of heavily discounted company debt. When the facts are finally presented, then you could see his motivations which resulted in him not honouring his fiduciary duties.
Will the preliminary injunction be granted? I don’t know. It will depend on the hearing on the 6th June; it will all come down to the persuasion of the argument from the respective lawyers. But as it is FRR who has brought this action, they should be given their day in the court I believe.