Gordon Stein, CFO of CleanTech Lithium, explains why CTL acquired the 23 Laguna Verde licenses. 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.
Sorry Looed for replying, no I donât trust everyone on here, itâs why I put GLA real holders. I have said it before, I / we real holders owe you and the other super sleuths an awful lot.
To our leader Steve, a big thank you for your update, life has been hard lately for us real holders watching and waiting, these updates help a lot, well for myself personally anyway. Feel free to sing along folks.
All things bright and beautiful, all companies great and smallâŚ.. just like ours!
You certainly won't be on ZM Christmas card list, but you're on mine.
Outstanding effort Looed, this is what real shareholder activism is.
Great feedback Looed, you are a star mate.
Seems obvious to me, anyone hoping to see any return on their investment should be supporting the company's efforts and the work done by SN. It's in all our collective best interests to support the company's path to recovery. Worth taking note of the feedback for anyone in any doubt of what is in our best interest and what is not.
Monti - its been a day, I will try to reply to you tomorrow.
I often see posts that ask why does the company talk to me. As though SN got his XL Stetson out, chucked all our names in and pulled mine out. Ridiculous.
Also, I donât think, after all this time, I need to justify or explain myself to anyone. The time I have dedicated to this BB by posting, the translations, trying my best to explain the myriad court cases and replying to as many posts as I can I think is already quite enough.
That said, I can understand that it might perplex some as to why or how I get messages.
So, for one time and one time only, I am going to give three reasons (there are many more) why the company talks to me. It doesnât excuse them not talking to you, that is not the intent here, but it might help you better understand why they engage with me.
1- I was the person SN referred to when Judge Weems asked who alerted the company to the ZM / GC conversion.
2- I have, for a long time, worked with the company and outside counsel (why I use to use the term âcomms chainâ as so many people where involved) to build the case against ZM.
3- I arranged key witness testimony that helped unravel ZMâs story and seal his fate in the Texas trial.
That is a small window into what has been going on behind the scenes. Please understand that I will not provide any more detail on the above. Besides, I think itâs all self-explanatory.
The company has trust issues. Who can blame them. In my case, and because of a number of factors that I cannot disclose, I believe I have built up an albeit arms-length degree of trust with the company. Even though my involvement in âcomms chainâ activity has all but ceased, they keep the door open when they could easily have banged it shut.
At the same time, the company know I champion the rights of shareholders so there is a constant push-and-pull of what can and what cannot be shared. As I said, the company has trust issues. They will always err on the side of caution, as I would expect them to, when sharing information with me. Do you trust everyone who monitors this BB?
Will the company do the right thing by us? They seem to be trying their best. As rubbish as they are at comms, they have people in place who are very experienced in events such as those currently in play. But those events must play out to a plan we cannot see and risk remains until they succeed or fail. Frustrating? Sure. What can you do about it? Very little right now.
No need to reply. For me this issue is now closed, and I wonât be addressing it again, thanks.
I had some contact with the company last night. The discussion included an update on âpost-Gazetteâ reactions. I shared the many positive messages that have been posted here as well as the negative, as I often do. As always, they appreciate hearing both sides, reacting to the more negative comments with a âwe understand the frustrationâ.
It was always expected that there might be a small vocal element (be it here, or elsewhere) who would seek to circumvent the process currently underway and who could potentially damage the long-term position of shareholders. Moreover, communications to third parties only serve to interfere with the work that SN and the FRC Board are doing to resurrect the companyâs operations, putting this objective at risk.
Following that discussion, I received a message that is copied at the end of this post. I have decided to post the message pretty much in full. It is a very clear red card to anyone who seeks to damage the company.
For the avoidance of doubt, please note that -
1- Obviously, this message does not apply to chat here or elsewhere in the public domain, nor does it apply to enquires to lawyers, accountants, liquidators, your clairvoyant, head butler and so on.
2- This is a targeted message. We know bad actors monitor the BB. Reckless actions can have serious consequences.
Here is the message -
ââŚ.Indeed, this type of communication is not helpful and not in everyone's collective best interests. As I indicated in my prior communication, we are continuing to work on behalf of all shareholders' best interests as we work to bring Frontera back to businessâŚ..Finally, regarding the temptation to levy baseless allegations, as you know all too well, we have spent considerable resources in successfully pursuing wrongdoing on behalf of all of our stakeholders.â
Tenners, you have asked Deloitte you tell us, when/ if they let you know if our shares are in frc, then you will know itâs lights out for us.
Other than that you are asking what we all want to know, no one can answer that âyetâ sadly
I just have one very important question. How does anybody know that when SN has moved FRUS beyond the control of FRC (parent company now with Deloitte), he has also taken us shareholders with him?
Whenever FRC was in play we had a reason to believe. Has he now not just dumped us alongside the creditors. If he has disposed of FRUS to new private venture, at what price?
Mine are still sitting in my iWeb general dealing account, where they were transferred to from my ISA upon delisting.
Holding that had left of Frr was in sipp with Barclays & still shows up in the sipp account
OK interesting, I guess no two UK brokers are the same. UK regs and FCA not fit for purpose then?
Bigun: there are many shares not held by brokers in nominee accounts. The bulk or my holding is in a nominee account but those that were in my ISA account were not held in a nominee account and so when they were chucked out of the ISA on delist, I was sent a paper share certificate by Frontera.
What Frontera should hold is a share register of all the holdings in FRC, although that will be with the liquidator now.
I'm hoping that the shares were transferred 1 for 1. I wonder if the costs incurred and fees for the current lawyers could be paid with shares that were owned by ZM, YA and SH/O. YA might still have preference shares that could be converted to shares held by Frontera in the treasury and SH/O might have held shares below the threshold for reporting. Just a thought. Wishing for a 'If Carlsberg did share transfers'...! We can only dream.
...I'm with Njames.
PSA licence transferred to FRUS whilst part of FRC. FRUS then immediately moved out of FRC and becomes a completely separate company and all our shares moved with it. With respect to nominee shares, this I believe is a "share certificate" that includes all the shares a broker holds for their customers. Therefore it is easier for the company because they only have to keep a register of brokers, the brokers themselves, in effect, holds the share registration. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Whether there is an 80/20 split between new and old shareholders, well let's hope for better than that.
All id like to know is how has sn extracted the shareholders out of frc and put us in frus but left the debt behind
not sure how that one works
Thanks Looed - appreciate your response. Please donât take my questions/probing as negative as I am just trying to piece together the various pieces for myself. As far as liquidation/insolvency situations are concerned, once the Liquidator has been appointed by the Court (Deloittes in this case), all decision-making will done by them. They will also be very careful in terms of incurring additional expense if there is no money to cover their running costs (they are not a charity). The liquidator will update the court with its finding and the court will approve next course of action. In the first stage, Deloittes will try to establish/prove up the amounts owned to the creditors and list any assets. In the YA cases, the counterparty is specifically FRC meaning Deloittes will be responsible for that and therefore will make all the decisions. In terms of the PGs, perhaps call up can only occur once Deloittes informs the creditors that there is no assets to repay them, which means YA and Moutanâs will try to exercise their own security. But as you say, this will take time.
My own take from winding up FRC is probably a positive development to jettison all legal cases and debts but this exposes the loyal and long standing shareholders to the mercy of SN to do us right when FRR returns. Legally speaking, we have no recourse to the new outfit if a new company resurrects as we expect. Would love to hear your thoughts on our current predicament and whether you think SN will look after this small retail (but aging) investors?
Thanks Looed. Understood. I'll continue to keep my eyes on this board then. From my point of view you've been doing an amazing job tracking what's going on and keeping us all informed, so thank you, its appreciated.
Hi Ziggy, sorry for the confusion. There are 3 cases involving YA and FRC
1- The original case in which the court found in favor of YA.
2- In November 2023 FRC notified the court that they would launch an appeal. It is the appeal process that I commented on.
3- Separate but also connected to the above is another case in which FRC are suing YA. This case was launched in October 2023. It is docketed for Trial on Merits 20/1/25. In this case FRC allege wrongdoing by YA in relation to case 1. YA have issued a general denial. We might not see action in this case for a while as per the docket schedule.
In 2, FRC, as at 30/01, continues to be represented by FRC outside counsel. The same is counsel of record in 3 but there have been no FRC-filings in that case since October 2023.
We need to wait until briefs are filed to find out more, but to Montiâs point I suppose YA might well find themselves in a pickle. Perhaps some difficulty collecting in Cayman, facing a potentially lengthy / expensive corporate level appeal in Texas should they attempt to try and collect there, as well as having to defend a separate case entirely.
Thatâs the best I can offer without more documentation from either party.
Monti â with regard to PGâs, the above cases appear to be at the corporate not personal level, at least for now.
I can see it is still confusing, but I am reminded that the company does have a good track record in suing and counter-suing parties that attack it and leaving them legally cornered. Hopefully next steps will reveal more.
Interesting development with YA, and thank you for sharing this us. Isnât hindsight a wonderful thing? What do I mean by that? Clearly the tactic of kicking the can down the road (first via UK courts, and then dragging this through the US) was clearly to coincide with the wind up of FRC. So, what happens now with regard to YA debt/case? It is true that this will now be decided by Deloittes. And what will Deloittes do? Nothing imho. They donât have the money to appeal, and besides this debt was never contested, so will accept the default judgment and record YA as one of the creditors that is owed money. There is no assets and no money in FRC so why appeal? As the Americanâs say âgood luck yaâ all. However is there any recourse to the Directors for negligence or via issuance of Personal Gâtees? I think there is with YA and Mourant, so it will be interesting to see what happens next with these PGs. We also recall that SN made a bi-lateral deal with Mourant to repay his share of the money owed. Again let us see what happens here.
Final pint on FRUS. If this entity was not extracted from the FRC group, then there is a possibility that the Georgian PSA, which expired, could have been renewed under a new separate FRR name. For me, it is somewhat strange that we have not heard any more on the renewal of the Georgian PSA or the tendering out of B12.
i am sorry i said we are all ****..rs , i am phuming but the milk was spilt and i am over it, as life goes on which is important to us all !
And on
Looed Getting right confused now re your message about YA
Thought Ya debt was in liquidated FRC in cayman
Is it the liquidator continuing the case ?
Or is it a FRC registered outside Cayman where the debt lies ?
If so whats our ( shareholders) relationship with the FRC registered out side Cayman ?
All you people sound like big shots , we are all Wa..kers ,we trusted d.cks me too ,shut the crap up and stop war and peace , wait it out and none can afford the fight .
I suppose the liquidators now have to decide whether to pursue this on behalf of the FRC estate. I'm guessing they don't.
Whats with all the randoms coming out of the woodwork claiming theyâre long term shareholders today? You get everything with this board.