We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
What a write up Coggy, I am invested way more than the wife knows, ( 4mill ) big sh@t if she ever finds out, small peanuts to some on here, most certainly not to me.
also can I say I hope to meet up with you real holders one day to toast the black swan, many thanks to all inputs headed by Looed, even hopefully with the old ii writers like TOT et al, keep the faith folks as it ain’t over till the fat lady sings, until then….all things bright and beautiful all companies great and small
GLA real holders
Six years ago I was a Mug preparing for the last years of my life.
Now I am ready to go to heaven and I am only 87.
IHT once was but no longer is a problem for me.
Fraudsters in Finance are robbing us.
Once robbed we dare not make a fuss.
Explain, complain? Most Aim is a con.
Approved and promoted by City Pros
Who have no idea to find out what goes on.
A really sincere, heart-touching post from Coggy. Perhaps someone can share this post with Nicandros/company so he/they can feel some of the anguish their long suffering shareholders are continuing to feel. Of course, Coggy is not the only individual who is a long standing investor, probably over-invested and had faith in the Directors comments and official news releases.
Having said all this, what is the difference between us (shareholders) and Mr Nicandros, who has invested his life, money and family reputation in to FRR? The answer is pretty simple: Nicardros knows exactly where he stands with his investment (as he is involved in the legal cases and is probably funding the legal costs) while we mortal, hopeless, bystanders speculate on the continued recovery of this train-wreck of an investment. We can only appeal to their good nature that they can somehow convey some kind of an update/signal to their shareholders of where we are. So, what could they do without comprising on the ongoing legal cases, including ZM who is also probably waiting to crawl out from under his rock at an opportune time? Not sure, but some kind of a general refresh of the corporate website could be seen as a positive sign.
Thanks to all who are genuinely trying to help and thereby keep each others mental state ‘above the rising water’.
Kip, my holding also doubled, spiked to around 0.70/80 from my memory, unfortunately dithered and hoped for more in 2018.I was buying 17/18. Average between .30-.40.
Irrelevant now and will be amazed to see anything back from this farcical s show. Thankfully it was a punt for me and accept that some fall by the wayside. Had I done more research on the shady corporate structure I may have avoided this scenario but hey you win some , you lose some.
Thanks for the response
Baramara - I think you are talking about jurisdiction and that the liquidators are using the NYC courts to enforce something that happened in Cayman? Is that right? Not sure if this answers your question.
The liquidators are using NYC as FRCC has "property' in that district given the entity paid a retainer to an NYC law firm. Also SN (and ZM at the time) are considered resident of the USA so 'fair game' for the liquidators to pursue them as the liquidators were unable to unlock any value in Cayman. Their only option is to go after the officers of the liquidated entity.
It was quite a while ago, but you might remember the company stated "We have legal teams in Texas and Georgia" - they did not say they we also have legal teams in NYC or Cayman. To date the company hasn't filed anything in the NYC case and we don't see any action in Cayman.
The NYC case is waiting for the outcome of the FIC V SN case in Texas to see what implications it has to its own case.
Prior to the settlement in the Hope Federal cases, FIC filed a new petition with the Texas court that sought to differentiate the FIC case from the others – “Such actions, and the attendant breach of fiduciary duties, are materially (or completely) distinct from the California Litigation and the Texas Litigation, and it is not reasonably foreseeable (and likely not conceivable) that a ruling in either case would impact this proceeding.” But then went on to argue the same points as the Hope cases including loan notes, Hope related court cases, Green Capital, the assignment, the arbitration, and so on.
Subsequent to those FIC filings, we know most of the arguments have been settled in the other cases or otherwise dealt with by the courts. As FIC moves forward, I think it is safe to assume they will rely on the new landscape post Hope which might explain why they are now cooperating and allowing a breathing space rather than accusing the parties of tactical delays etc. Their goal is to try and recoup funds or, as a last resort, give up if it looks like the means to realize funds (for example, the asset) are safely, and legally, protected from their actions meaning ongoing legal costs outweigh any potential for gains.
I don't know if it is still relevant, but you might recall FRC made a royalty provision when reassigning the asset. Perhaps, if FRC is able to finalize a new deal, (and the royalty offer still stands) that might be palatable to the parties rather than engage in yet another round of seemingly endless litigation.
Sycric - "Was there mention further down the road they would be reaching out to those who held holdings?" - Yes, that is what they have said, post litigation.
For quite sometime now I have seen any return on this as a lottery win. With greater odds.
If there any any success of this business I cannot see how our ownership is any different to that of Steve's.
Technically Steve's elected and just cause he was in position doesn't inherit a business owned 10% for example by him.
I think for most that the silence is unsettling, if we were this far in with a little more reassurance. Most probably could handle the lengthy wait.
Looed I believe it's yourself who speaks to the business occasionally or have done in the past.
(Though I could be mistaken)
Was there mention further down the road they would be reaching out to those who held holdings?
Such a comment may perk us the spirits of those who are gathering dust.
Since the gang of four visited Tbilisi. Mole, R8pilot, Wishful Thinker and myself spent two days in Tbilisi, air fares subsidised by your good selves, contributors to this board. And what a board it was at the time. Lively, funny, popular and positive. Anyway, the first day was spent in the FRR offices, where we received presentations on field geology, current production figures, estimated reserves, future development plans, the works. These presentations were delivered at later Investor meetings, hosted by ZM and held in London. It was a time where a number of us first met face to face and the future looked bright and promising. The second day was spent in the field. I remember it was a good few hours from Tbilisi to one of the production facilities, owned and operated by FRR. Production wasn't fantastic. Some of the nodding donkeys delivering as little as a barrel a day. But it was evidence, tangible proof of oil bearing rocks that helped to temper my doubts and fears. ZM's positivity and sales pitch made me feel comfortable that my investment in this Company was safe and would be rewarded.
Fast forward twelve months from then and things started to go down hill pretty rapid. I remember Puddy saying to me at the last Investors meet, October 2018 I think, that he smelt a rat with ZM's presentation and ZM actually had a go at Cheesie, doubting Cheesie's investment and sincerity.
We stopped trading on Christmas Eve 2018 and haven't had an official peep out of the Company since. We all know of the multitude of court cases and litigation that has ensued. We have been kept abreast of hearings initially by our super sleuths and then latterly by Looed, who has been performing an exceptional job keeping tabs on all the various legal cases progressing here, there and everywhere. I know he has had his critics, but for me he has literally been a king pin keeping this board informed through very dark times. Sadly, much of his work has been lost on me. I found things far too complicated to take in and comprehend. After all, I'm an Engineer lol.
So why am I rambling on a Friday night? What's my point? I don't know really, but we've all learnt a very painful lesson here. For some it has been life changing, and for the worse. For others, not too damaging.
Is there the slightest chance that we see a return on our investment here one day? As Arzenal would say, we'll just have to wait a bit. Only time will tell.
Special shout for Tsbs, chin up old lad 👍
Barama: "Hi Looed thanks for you reply to my question regarding withdrawal of counsel, I know if I ask I’ll receive reassuring answer. By the way, in future I will use google rather than Wikipedia ."
Wikipedia is not recommended for research as anyone can change it, however, if you look at the bottom of the pages you will see links to relevant sources, so in effect doing a more focussed google search for you.
Baramara - regarding the SOCAR case, are you referring to the alleged selling of oil?
Hi Looed thanks for you reply to my question regarding withdrawal of counsel, I know if I ask I’ll receive reassuring answer. By the way, in future I will use google rather than Wikipedia .
.Oh here’s another one, regarding NY case,I’ll probably be wrong but is the liquidator using the same argument that frontera resources Aserbaijan V SOCAR used in 2009(re foreign entity) and could it be used against us.
Sorry Phil_2018, My spider senses were correct... (Bull is one thing, but please don't insult people that have also lost a lot of money in this share, more than you.)
3rd May 2020: 14:47 - I've put a few grand in this share, I could do a lot of positive stuff with the money if it came good. If it doesn't I can still go on, I will be the poorer for it but I will get by.
24th Aug 2018: 19:08 - Evening all, I am new here but have been invested in this stock since April of this year. It has indeed been frustrating waiting for this stock to come to fruition. That said I belive it will do. The fact that this Zaza guy hasn't sold out his stock and seems to me from his podcast to be a straight up serious guy suggests to me it has some go in it. Some people I have seen on here say he is charismatic, I don't see that, he can probably do a press conference or shareholder meet well enough. For me though a straight up serious guy is more important than a flashy guy that would try and pull the wool over investors. I don't think he would try to do that, after all he is a big investor himself in this company and one that is presently losing out until undeniably good results come out. I'm not sure what the hold up is here, I think this week he should either publish the expected results from the wells we are expecting T45
"Just before delisting my shareholding doubled in value over what it was when I bought it. " I question this sentence... Please do share when you originally bought and at what price. I do not recall this ever-doubling in price. I recall many share issues and consolidations...
So we're waiting out to roughly October, about a month's time to hear on the YA court one? Unless of course they come to an agreement first.
My guess is that it's going to go to the court dates and then the parties will work from there on whatever judgement there is. That tends to be the impression I get.
My hope is that FRR is moving towards something eventually positive here?
Just before delisting my shareholding doubled in value over what it was when I bought it. Things were looking very bright then. Then the delisting and all the bad news. A lot of that has been worked through now but we haven't yet resurfaced. Wouldn't it be good to have those times of looking ever upwards back!
Baramara - are you asking if the continuance is due to lack of legal representation? If so, then the answer is no. The parties state in the motion for continuance that -
"Recently, the Courts in the California Federal Action and the Texas Federal Action have dismissed those lawsuits.
In light of those dismissals, the Parties are now able to focus solely on this Lawsuit. Although the Parties have conducted initial written discovery, they need additional time to complete discovery before the trial of this matter can occur. At this time, it is necessary to complete written discovery, depose fact and expert witnesses, and obtain expert discovery.
A continuance would provide the Parties adequate opportunity to focus their efforts on completing discovery and preparing for trial in this matter. Without the continuance of the trial setting and currently pending deadlines, the Parties will be unfairly harmed and prejudiced and unable to adequately prepare their respective cases for trial."
I think you might get more accurate search results if google something like "motion for continuance (or whatever word / term you are searching for) in Texas civil law / code / court" rather than rely only on Wikipedia, as the laws can vary state to state in the USA.
Looed, I love your last 3 words, very positive indeed 👍
GLA real holders
Wikipedia , American, law joint motion for continuance.
Absence or withdrawal of counsel?
Hi MontiBurns – I prefer you think of my posts as opinion. I will always flag direct messaging from the company as such.
In your second paragraph you say, “We had all thought at that time (following the execution of this agreement) other major cases between OMF-Hope and SN-FRC would have settled but atlas, we are none-the-wiser.”
By “major cases” do you mean FIC v SN or do you have another case in mind ?
The cases in which Hope / OMF was either named plaintiff or defendant have settled. The joint motion for continuance in the FIC case is a direct consequence of the settlement in the Hope-specific cases and signals a shift in the relationship.
You mention the grim reaper – in ZM we not only met the G.R. but got to experience first-hand his scam to cull us all, yet we prevailed.
Looed, your depth of ongoing legal matters concerning FRR is astonishing and (for us mortal shareholders) gratifying. Can I assume that some of your messages posted here are being reviewed/cleared by someone at FRR to ensure the accuracy, particularly noting some of the granular details in your posts? Nevertheless, while we are stuck in what seems like a perpetual vacuum on official news from the company, your posts are helping many desperate shareholders of ‘keeping the flame alive’ (including myself). Five years on, I am sure we may have sadly lost many to the grim reaper (just a sad fact of life).
With regard to FICvsSN, one thing that gave me enormous comfort was the signing of the global legal agreement with Hope, which saw the California case fall away. We had all thought at that time (following the execution of this agreement) other major cases between OMF-Hope and SN-FRC would have settled but atlas, we are none-the-wiser. Recall at that time, we speculated that perhaps Hope was given some Royalty payment scheme whereby he would recoup his debt from future oil sales. But I don’t think this proceeded as we thought, because otherwise Hope would have instructed the Liquidators to cease all proceedings.
Anyway, perhaps the closure of the YA case may finally allow the Company to say something to their saintly shareholders, in terms of future plans But until then, we have to be grateful for your posts.
Thanks
One more point - You might wonder why this case is based in NYC while all the others are in Texas. This is because the FRCC liquidators retained NYC based counsel. In the eyes of the court this means FRCC has "property" in NYC and so can proceed its action in that district.
Tsbs1 - we don't really know. But back in January this is what the GOGC said -
"As the chairman of the agency, Giorgi Tatishvili, reported to "Business Partner”, "Frontera" returned 99% of the license block according to the international arbitration order. It has 1% remaining where the Oil and Gas Corporation operates.
“The local company of “Frontera” is in liquidation mode. As the liquidation process is underway, and not to deteriorate the economic situation and not to spill the oil, this oil is managed by the state itself. However, at the same time, we are negotiating with the American management of “Frontera", which has a desire to continue working here, but with the condition of fulfilling the terms that were put forward by the arbitration, because the amount has to be paid. So there is an opportunity for” Frontera " to return. If this does not happen, the state will continue to work there,” – says Giorgi Tatishvili."
Elsewhere, we saw various sums of money being quoted that the company said they had via the support of US banks and financial institutions.
As expected, a tweaking of the dates to accommodate the recently filed YA Motion for Summary Judgement. The company have swapped the dockets and advised the court as follows -
"Hearing on YA II PN, Ltd.’s Motion For Motion for Traditional And No- Evidence Summary Judgment in the above-styled and numbered cause is set for hearing on Friday, October 6, 2023, at 10:00 A.M. by Order of the Court."
This means the Trial on Merits will need to be arranged for a later date, possibly taking the October 9 slot but so far, nothing filed to that effect.
As a reminder, this is the latest in an along line of attempts by YA to enforce judgement with all previous attempts failing. Though the latest motion includes some of the "helpful suggestions" put forward by the company, it does rely on many of the same arguments as the previous motions. Of course there is always the chance YA will prevail.
Why would the company agree to switch dates and put back their Trial on Merits so YA can attempt to get Summary Judgement? There could be many reasons, one could be that a failure by YA to obtain Summary Judgement (again) is the court telling YA they don't have a strong case and which might then be a factor in any subsequent Trial on Merits.
Hi toatie - the full name of this case is "FRCC & David Griffin Bankruptcy Court". The main reason it isn't discussed too much is because nothing much has happened in the case. The case was filed in 2019. FRCC (Frontera Resources Caucasus Corp) is one of the Cayman entities under liquidation along with FIC and FRGC.
In simple terms it is an attempt by the Cayman liquidators to try and find value via the officers (SN, ZM) as they haven't been able to realize any value in Cayman. The filings discuss all the same Hope-related talking points as the FIC case. As far as I can see, the company have never filed any response to this case.
The original filing in October 2019 was a "Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Proceedings" and the judge granted the right to proceed in January 2020. Nothing seems to have happened and in April 2022, the judge asked the legal equivlent of "whats going on here?" In reply, a report was filed to say the liquidators are monitoring the FIC v SN, ZM case and will await the outcome of that case.
Hard to say if this case is already dead in the water (hence the lack of action) or if it might present a danger at some future point. It does cover many of the same issues as FIC v SN so I assume this case will go the same way that one does.
With all these cases coming to a conclusion with settlements, what can frr actually be promising them
We dont even know what they still have in terms of land and psa