Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. 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.
Chris
1st great info found & thanks.
Avi8R
Excellent summery of where Frr concerning court cases & very much agree that the what used to be a very big can of worms, is now very, very much smaller.
So Frr are still looking like they will beat the wrap, as previously mentioned & even though we (shareholders) do not know where we will stand on the former happening. I am feeling more positive on that something worthwhile will come out of all of this for the shareholders, but still work to be done. Nowhere near as much as previous though.
My interpretation means that the interlocutory appeals are now moot as the outcome of the trial on 4th March 2022 reached final judgement, rendering the interlocutory appeals unnecessary.
As Looed comments, court cases are being whittled down. There being now 3 (?) remaining:
1) FIC v SN (Texas)
SN requested delay pending outcome of similar cases at the federal level (Hope case) hearing date: 20 July 22 for arguments. Federal case rescheduled to 2023.
2) FIC case
In the proceeding, FIC and FRGC allege SN and ZM breached fiduciary duties by approving transactions violating lending agreements plus failing to supervise and conserve the assets of FIC and FRGC. The court recently grants procedural motion for 3 additional lawyers to join SN legal team.
ZM being no longer part of the picture this will fall to SN. I suspect he will argue the decisions were made without his knowledge/approval, as he has previously, and the matter settled in his favour. This may result in the return of all equipment and infrastructure which was seized by the liquidator, that judgement being/becoming void.
3) Mourant v SN, ZM case (non-payment of legal fees) - Texas
Trial date: 28 November 2022
This is likely a moot point as ZM is no longer involved, or capable of taking part. I suspect it may be settled pre trial.
Slowly, this can of worms is being dealt with and paving the way for the company to [hopefully] return to what it was established for and provide returns to investors in the process.
This is one of the two interlocutory appeals that FRC argued are now moot in support of the Motion to Dismiss which the court has granted. See my post of a fee days ago for the sequence of events.
Morning Chris,
Many thanks, am I reading this as good..?
Layman terms please if anyone is fully understanding of this…??
Nice find Chris, so if I'm reading that correctly, SN. et al. have dismissed their accelerated appeal to compel arbitration, because they won that court case?
Opinion issued May 17, 2022.In TheCourt of AppealsFor TheFirst District of Texas————————————NO. 01-21-00125-CV———————————STEVE NICANDROS, LUIS GIUSTI, TYLER NELSON,AND FRONTERA RESOURCES CORPORATION, AppellantsV.ZAZA MAMULAISHVILA, INDIVIDUALLYAND DERIVATIVELY ON BEHALF OF FRONTERA RESOURCES CORPORATION, AppelleeOn Appeal from the 281st District CourtHarrisCounty, TexasTrial Court Case No. 2021-03816MEMORANDUM OPINIONAppellants Steve Nicandros, Luis Giusti, Tyler Nelson, and FronteraResources Corporation filed a voluntary motion to dismiss their accelerated appeal
2of the trial court’s order denying theirmotion to compelarbitration.1In theirmotion, Appellants statethat on March 4, 2022, the trial court issued a final judgment inthe underlying caserendering their interlocutory appeal moot. See Hernandez v. Ebrom, 289 S.W.3d 316, 319 (Tex. 2009) (“Appeals of some interlocutory orders become moot because the orders have been rendered moot by subsequent orders.”).No opinion has issued in this interlocutory appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P.42.1(c).Wegrant Appellants’motion and dismissthis interlocutory appeal,with costs taxed against the party incurring same. See TEX.R.APP.P.42.1(a)(1), 43.2