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.
FRR have "6-10 witnesses and 2 experts, some of which permanently reside out of the country" lined up, and some written discoveries. They also have 7 attorneys on the case in California, so they seem very confidant.
Does Zaza have damning evidence against Hope?
To date FRR haven't done that well in court against Hope. If they don't have damning evidence then can they survive a bad judgement if it got to that, I doubt it, not unless they can get more finance in. That may be possible, they habe time now that the case has been put back again, 2021 is it now. If things pick up after October's Elections in Georgia then stuff could get sorted then.
When someone accepts a directorship of a company, then they automatically accept it as a fiduciary duty. This means that they are legally obligated to give that organisation priority over their other considerations, particularly financial ones. To this end, they have to avoid any conflict of interest, particularly in terms of insider dealing or having an active financial stake in a company with an opposing interest.
That's the law, and it appears obvious that Hope, et al, are breaking it, as FRR are claiming in their court case. From the latest activity in California, it seems clear that FRR have been successful in collecting the necessary evidence in proof of that claim. And everyone, even Hopes' Dopes (who ran away on merely hearing that news), knows what the verdict is likely be. Breaching fiduciary duties is a very serious offence - in legal terms it is actually described as 'unconscionable'. On being found guilty, Hope/OMF will be held responsible for all the expense which they have caused FRR through their illegal breaching activity, so will be held liable for all of FRR's legal costs in all those American court cases where the 2 sides have crossed swords on the matter. They will also probably have to pay over $50 million in damages. Great.
But what does that mean for the current position in Georgia? Although Hope/OMF, I believe, have not made any profit from FRR, according to law any profit that they would have made from their legally 'unconscionable' offence would have to be paid to FRR, along with damages. Hope/OMF currently have ownership of FRCC, which they gained via the illegal breach. If FRCC was liquidated prior to completion of the Cali case, the same rules would apply - any profit gained from FRCC, or it's liquidation, would have to go to FRR, along with any damages caused by that liquidation. (Oh dear, think of how much that could cost!).
We know to our cost that Hope's lawyers are pretty capable, so they will know all of the above. If they don't, I'm quite sure that the 7 attorneys currently employed by FRR would be pleased to make them aware of the perilous position that they (Hope, et al) are now in. I very much doubt that the liquidation, and any complications arising from it, will occur. It would suit the interests of neither Hope nor FRR, and I think Hope would come off much the worst. (The liquidation started about the turn of the year, and seems to have stalled. Perhaps we now know why).