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.
Ivy- I've meant to ask before after reading some of your posts - are you a Sandancer by any chance?
Thanks Coggy, I, and others I am sure , appreciate your honesty.
I am also in that camp, I cannot mentally write this off as people often say, I wish I could, but like you and others, I have put in more than I can afford, so the option to ‘forget about it’ just doesn’t work for me.
I have trust in Mole, Devex, .. never met them and do not know them personally, but I do believe they are very genuine and trustworthy people.
So thinking out loud and maybe in hope more than anything, why the silence? If they have heard nothing, then confirm that is the case, or is it just that they like us have heard zero, so nothing to say?
Best and good luck.
LCBN
LCBK, I can say with hand on heart that I do not have a clue as to what is going on, other than what is posted on these boards. Given that. I never read the court papers anyway, as they were either too long or too complicated.
I used to be in touch with Mole, Devex, ToT, Regdik and Brmg during my FoF days, but am not in contact now as I didn't join FSHG. Everyone knows Zaza has contacted Mole personally in the past and if he did give him priveliged information, Mole certainly wouldn't pass it on.
I am set to lose a substantial amount of money if this doesn't come good. I can't afford to mentally write it off. All my will and energy is focussed on a positive outcome. If we have to call stumps, I'm set for a lousy retirement.
Guys: it's 'desserts' ... just or unjust!
Aarrgghh!
Coggy: many thanks for sharing your take on Zaza's character. It certainly helps to read that from someone who has spent considerably longer in his company than the rest of us.
Coggy,
As one of the 4, .. and as a respected observer, have you heard or seen anything that others are hinting at, but cannot/will not say, regarding a positive background development, that us shrooms are not aware of?
Thanking you in advance,
Binary
Either game over
Or
Atlantic council no longer needs SN and ZM as they have done the deal..
The rest is speculation. Hopefully the later.
As for this share, bottom drawer.
Fingers crossed and what will be will be.
No point in us bickering now on this BB.
Good post ODR. As one of the four who went to Georgia, my take on Zaza's behaviour and current silence is that he has been told, or ordered even, to say nothing. Quite why, is anybody's guess.
I don't see him as a ruthless business man who would get all pally pally with PI's one minute, then shaft them the next. If the Company survive, then I believe we will survive.
dulwichman, we are not “forcing” an AGM to be held, it is a preordained right.
Additionally, unless they did indeed hold an unadvertised AGM at the principle office on the second Thursday in April this year at 10:00am, then they are in default of their own Articles of Association.
Now I don’t know the legislative requirements in the Cayman’s, but given that that they appear to be based predominantly on U.K. law I will presume (unsubstantiated at this point in time however) that the Cayman’s have an organisation akin to Companies House in the U.K.
As such, if one of my companies in the U.K. were found by Companies House to be non compliant with their articles that company would likely be at the least suspended until such time as the error was rectified, or at worse struck off.
IMHO
Heidi
I have no issues with your point of view in principle and I am sure that we are both of the same group who want success in a legitimate and open way. I can only say one comment to your quite correct as I see it legally from our point of view to forcing the issue of an AGM. That being in my experience of Aim Companies and indeed the odd FTSE100 is that AGM'S do get the only real difference is that they announce and delay and state why via an RNS to add to this any normal AGM will have the accounts attached to that meeting. My only though and it is is guess work is that for some technical reason or perhaps even a practical reason is that the accounts have not been done. But as we have found out supposedly our shares are in the holding Company. I see no reason as a stage 1 plan a formal request is made in a polite non aggressive way for your concerns to be resolved.
dulwich, with the greatest respect, what has not been overdemanded is the requirement for them to have held an AGM.
After having been kindly guided to a copy of the company’s Articles of Association (which they are legally obliged to operate under, be the company listed on a recognised exchange or not), and it would appear that they have either been remiss not to have held one in April, or they held one without announcing that one was to be held (which having read the Articles it would appear that this is strangely something that they can do if they so wish to).
What they could not have done however is voted on any resolution at that meeting, as we as shareholders had not been given the opportunity to vote by proxy.
It would have been wholly illogical, not to say incredibly ludicrous, to have held an AGM without any resolutions being passed, as there are some standard resolutions that get passed at every AGM, over and above resolutions such as application/re-applications for board members, passing of the previous minutes being an accurate representation, the passing of the annual accounts as being an accurate representation of the financials, etc.
Wishing to remain silent on certain issues due to ongoing conflicts is one thing, but being so dismissive of their shareholders, and being in breach of their own corporate governance which they are legally obliged to do so is quite another thing.
The above is merely my opinion based on reading the Articles of Association, and not being portrayed as fact, and I did request yesterday for anyone to pass comment on this postulation but not one response was received.
I am all for playing our cards close to our chests due to the circumstances we find ourselves in, but to be so totally disrespectful to us long standing shareholders, not to mention not meeting their legal obligations contained within their (the Company) own Articles of Association, is in my mind totally unacceptable.
Oh yeah, my bad. Still, it was several months after the fact I believe? That RNS actually brought some comfort re-reading it so cheers!
Since frr didn't announce the nda officially and neither did (we assume) BP at the time, I don't think they will be announcing the end or an extention either. There is plenty of stuff that shareholders have found out they could of relayed back to us. Let's face it, the first thing we are going to hear from frr is the outcome of the court case and that will be after taffy has already posted it on here no doubt. Here's hoping there will be a deluge of announcements to follow and not back to the silent treatment!
And there we come to the nda......going for 12 months odd.....Coming to an end.
What will this mean ?
Bp shareholders informed of fresh pastures, ?
We learn our fate ?
....or brushed under carpet, and new one signed - continuation........or they walk away ??
Billion dollar question
One day
Thanks for your post . I may be able to add just a little bit more meat to the bone re shareholder meetings. I had an after meeting drink with tim from YJ . In fact it was just a general chat about share holder involvement in general. and very interesting it was as well as from my perspective getting on with Tim himself ( we had outside interests which were common) I seem to remember that it was who came up with this idea of meetings which were updates rather than formal company meetings and was a bit of an experiment but he felt they were a good idea and seem to work well and that he was hoping to persuade other clients to do the same. At this point I would say that there was general consensus from us poor PI's that these were a good idea as they explained in detail a little more than is normally released via an RNS but contained no new information just explanation. What was certainly clear was that there were shall we say o"overdemands" from share holders which were tantamount to privileged information and that zaza was under pressure to go further and was constantly referring or looking at the Nomad to see if he was keeping within the rules but he was trying to as helpful as possible. To add to this zaza and tim did attend the after meeting drinks sessions which again quite naturally maintained the pressure for new information. I my self felt that a few people went to far and put him in a difficult position in shall we say a social situation.
My memory is hazy but I do seem to remember after one meeting zaza was shall we say "over generous" with what I will call detail. which did result in a bit of a fuss and was much discussed on this board after what I think was a shorter making a complaint to the FCA.
Whilst the above is not any excuse at all for a lack of information it may just be in the back of somebodies minds within either our own team or the lawyers so as to make them very hesitant in communications in general as well as the normal practice and advice during legal proceedings for the Lawyers to have either the final say or indeed to handle all the public communications in case it affects the case. Our own situation is somewhat complicated and to some extent unusual or at least legally speaking as for within mu knowledge which is limited cases of our type rarely get to court as they is a lot of trying to save face. My own personal view is that the lack of information as due to the Lawyers and not a lack of good will from the Company others can and I am sure will disagree as they are entitled to as we have no details. but we all live in hope.
But if they're in ankle deep with us....then surely they are keeping it from their shareholders Tsb...
Excellent post ODR and no thanks Zib for your post last night, I've had too many sleepless nights with this share and although I can understand your motive I don't need you to add to them.
Very good post Odr.
I agree with you. One reason I'm glad I haven't met him...I can look at the facts in the cold light of day, without thinking I know him from a few brief meet ups.
I have believed what he has said in interviews, and meetings, but can weigh it up, and balance it out with the facts as they come to light.
I'm not rainbowed.
Good afternoon all
Given the bad news that has emanated over the past 48 hours, we have all become understandably even more frustrated that Zaza hasn't updated us on any news. This frustration is augmented as YJ seem to be receiving the cold shoulder too. We also know that FSHG have been stonewalled, which is derogatory, especially given they represent 28% of the shareholders of Frontera.
So why is Zaza behaving like this?
I have been reflecting on my dealings with him. Having spoken to him I formed a positive impression, and that fact, coupled with his openness and approachability, was a factor in increasing my personal investment to a massive amount for me. However, there were always a couple of anomalies. One was at the 25 January shareholder meeting when, during the open question and answer session, I asked him if he regretted his promise of no fundraising only to go to the market a few weeks later for funds. His answer was an emphatic 'no'. So humility is something alien to him.
The treatment of us shareholders since Christmas has led me to conclude the following about him. He appears a driven man and seems to want success at almost all costs. Accordingly I think he only does things when he thinks he will benefit from them. So the shareholder presentations were purely an attempt to sustain the share price to help raise capital. Currently he doesn't need us shareholders to be onside so he is ignoring us. His focus is winning against Hope and my fear is that his arrogance might mean that he doesn't make the correct decision to chuck it in when he (as far as we can see) appears to be losing. This is proving a distraction for sure. But this win at all costs attitude may also turn out to be our saviour as he will want a huge return on his massive shareholding and, if that happens, then we benefit too.
The four who went to Georgia will have a better knowledge of the man than any of us; it would be interesting (given we have sweet fa otherwise to go on) to hear what they think about his motives/behaviour.
JMO