PYX Resources: Achieving volume and diversification milestones. 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.
You can go back to end 2020 and find statements from the GG discussing the need to resolve court cases as a prerequisite for talks. This statement was made by the then-Georgian Finance Minister in relation to Outrider who had appealed to the GG for the rights to B12:
“We know, in general, there are problems with lenders and there are some disputes. ...we will wait for the dispute between them to be resolved. If something is imposed on the state of Georgia, we will, of course, fulfill it. However, I think that part of the license will remain at the discretion of the Georgian government. My opinion is this. We will judge how this trial and dispute will end, including the results. The government will make the decision that is most optimal and acceptable for the economy. We can not and will not transfer assets and land to compensate someone…. The dispute needs to be resolved and we need to look at the issue from a different perspective.”
ZM launched his court case in Jan 2021. In June 2021 the company was granted its Temporary Injunction and in August 2021 the company filed a Motion for Contempt.
In August 2021 the then-Georgian Economy Minister, talking about ZM (and taking a swipe at the ZM-enabling opposition), who had been very ‘vocal’ in the local media and in promoting his illegal conversion, said:
“(The state agencies) really had an arbitration dispute with the American "Frontera". Since then we have been cooperating quite constructively. One of our main demands is for Frontera to take into account amounts owed to the employeed people. In general, “Frontera” is important for us as an American business and, I am sure, very soon we will reach a mutual agreement. As for the false information spread today, I would like to call on the media channels that spread such unverified information so quickly, to check who their respondents are, so that they do not find themselves in the same awkward situation as they are today. Because American “Frontera” has made a statement that the gentlemen who seem to be speaking on behalf of this company do not represent this company at all.”
In October 2021 the company addressed one the main demands mentioned above:
“Going forward, Frontera intends to cooperate with local stakeholders, employees and contractors to remedy any damages that were inflicted by Mr. Mamulaishvili and his affiliates.” which has perhaps been remedied in part by the GOGC working the fields.
We now appear to be close to resolving the relevant litigations which is consistent with the above historical statements and more recent messaging on comms and updates.
Bedecked, lol. No he's not.
I'd be very happy at 10p a share but are your figures correct ?
Has there not been dilution?
Id prefer a sale just get rid £1.5 bil would be good 10p a share im sure there would be no complainers
Hope exists then. Real hope, not the bad one!
Lets see if they can drag this over the finish line and return to the market.
The company is prohibited from operating in Georgia. The Enforcement Agency initially allowed the state agencies to operate the lands to offset debts and maintain the fields, and the agency continues to operate the fields as confirmed by the head of the GOGC in Jan 2023:-
"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.”
(edited from translation #59)
Consistent with the last 3 quarters, less than US$5K spend on lobbying on Q2
https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2023/Q2/301478759.xml
Jekyll - Take a look at the articles below. Does YA look like a company that sails close to the wind, or are the SEC just stupid?
https://yorkvilleadvisors.wordpress.com/
1 May 2018 — Yorkville Advisors, LLC is a privately owned and operated hedge fund ... of stock manipulators who like to “pump and dump” those shares.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2012/10/17/sec-charges-formerly-1-billion-yorkville-advisors-hedge-fund-with-fraud-and-bogus-valuations/
Judge axes key SEC claims that New Jersey hedge fund firm inflated assets
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sec-yorkvilleadvisors-idUSKBN1H61KT
Baramara, are you Coggy?
Was there not conversations a while back, GOGC were working the field in order to
Pay monies owed to the workforce, and for safety reasons, seems the workers stopped their demonstration all over sudden .
.
I was under the impression there is oil & Gas flowing so a revenue is going somewhere, hopefully not still going to Zaza, and was also thinking once producing O&G licences automatically renewed.
If YA illegally forward sold shares, I’m surprised they’d want to be anywhere near a Courtroom.
See RNS no 5391E, 19th Oct 2018.
YA gave Frr an ext on paying money back, as they had tried as mentioned to illegally sell shares.
Overall though would be better for Frr for settlement out of court.
Enjoy
YA were taken to court for illegally selling shares in FRR, which they didn't own and quickly settled out of court in Frontera's favour. IMHO they've tried to use the courts to bring in the recievers, but now that has failed, will settle out of court to avoid the forward selling accusation surfacing again.
The amount YA II are trying to enforce is the original award of £2.5m which excludes the costs involved in the current litigation. This is the second time YA II have tried to enforce this via the Texas courts.
This case isn’t only about the amount owed. This case is an attempt by YA II to have the judgement recognized in Texas.
FRC state in their motion “Before the judgment of a foreign country is entitled to be enforced in Texas, it must first be granted recognition by a Texas court…..Texas has established a procedure — a mandatory procedure — for determining whether the judgment of another nation should be granted”
YA II seem to be struggling to obtain the required “recognition” from the courts. Should the recognition be granted, then it becomes about the money.
The attempt to appoint receivers by YA II could be seen as a move to try and work around this lack of recognition and their ability to obtain it, which obviously failed in court. It is FRC that motioned for and was granted a trial on merits and as I shared, they seem confident they will prevail at trial, presumably should it get that far.
Other issue is that if FRR are found in default and/or agree on receiver with YA, what's the chances of a return on this by that route. Am I right in thinking that the appointed receiver is duty bound to get the best price for whatever remains of the company in all or in different parts sold off? So in our case the tail end of the licence agreement, some wells & equipment on site but most importantly the oil & gas data, it's location, etc. After all no point in YA bothering to go after FRR and have a receiver (eventually) appointment unless it thinks it can get at least somewhere near the $2 million it is owed or even near $1 million, half a million, etc. So it must have some idea that one way or another it can extract the money from FRR otherwise a pointless action on its behalf bothering pursuing the case.
So if for argument sake YA believe they can reclaim some money towards its $2 million if not the whole sum, then odds are a buyer is going to be willing to pay a fair bit for FRR. While not anywhere near the money if we had a licence extension then still quite a lot mainly based on the data and the opportunity to then get a license extension from the GG. So my guess is potentially enough for us investors to see our money returned with some profit perhaps??? Could this end up our way out of this mess, perhaps the only way with the GG unwilling to grant a licence extension to FRR given its history with FRR if that is the case.
Any funds required by Frr I think very unlikely that they would think about approaching shareholders. On reasons you have mentioned & maybe couple more.
Still very good to know how things look to be going.
So, as normal.
An excellent job by Looed & Jim on contact from Frr.
Great to hear YA can't appoint receivers before the case is heard. Thanks once again for the info Looed.
That YA wanted to appoint receivers so readily does make me wonder if they really are after taking control of FRR rather than a desire to push FRR to a deal. For us this means FRR have until this October at present to get something sorted out. It seems pretty clear to me that FRR defaulted on the debt so I can't see it winning the case. I doubt FRR have any money in the bank from operations as they have all ceased now and for a number of years as far as we know.
So where is FRR to get the money from? Possibly around $2millon.
If it has an investor onboard it might get it from that if they have already invested and might be why YA is pursuing the case. I am not so sure as my guess is any investment would be held back until a new license is agreed and then we would hear particularly of stuff happening in the ground so no no news on that front means no investor with money actually paid in but possibly one waiting in the wings if a new license extension is agreed.
So I can't see an investor waiting in the wings stepping in to save FRR from YA as without money put in already it could just walk off. So then who to save YA?
To my mind it just brings us down to SN, SH and possibly us. SH I don't think would be too eager to invest further although he offered a loan way back that ZM (possibly wrongly) took as an attempt to rest control of the company. He's invested so many stand to lose big if he doesn't stump up at least some of the money, if he still has money to do so.
SN apparently has money so could stump up some or all of the money also. It seems that he has plentiful money to cover the debt from what we here so is he prepared to loan FRR the money with no guarantee of a license extension, i.e getting his money back. Like SN he is invested, he has shares and could make big if FRR came good. Usually business thinking is not to be suckered into using your own money to support a business where return is far from certain. So he may look elsewhere possibly to SN to take that risk which is what Outrider is all about, high risk but possibly high gain investment. Possibly SN might go halves with SH, one mil each or find another investor/venture capitalist? to fund it.
Lastly, us shareholders, we're already invested so have interest in not seeing our investment go south. That said do many of us want to risk throwing good money potentially after bad. Again with no license agreement up front as far as we know. Most here are fed up and reluctant to invest further after already feeling being had and largely cut out of the loop by FRR needless to say with little power to act. So I wonder if they would struggle to raise the money here with a further share issue to shareholders on something that might prove next to worthless with no license extension. My guess is that FRR won't turn to shareholders only as a last resort.
Whobuys - see the message from the company that JimSlade shared 11 Jul 2023 16:29 and the messages following on from that. YA II is one factor, not the only factor.
And YA v FC is the key one holding things up? since the others are personal cases against SN
meaning any resolution on this that doesnt kick the can could mean comms?
Cyrox, what is most amazing is that I am still alive.
Get your Finance in order before you invest in AIM promoted
by the Financial Press as IHT friendly. Family pays no tax if we
AIM suckers die after 2 years of holding on to our "investment".
No surprise that so many elderly get caught and some of us are
approaching 90 living in hope and dying with nothing left.
It will be amazing if all my AIM investment is in profit and without
IHT when I stop breathing. I wish A. Bailey and his FCA friends in
charge of Finance , Sunak and Co. may read what Mapp has to say
about
Federal case -
FRCC & David Griffin Bankruptcy Proceedings – No activity since April 2022.
Harris County Civil cases -
Mourant Ozannes v SN –Trial on Merits set for 28/08/23.
YA II v FRC – Trial on Merits set for 06/10/23
FIC v SN – Trial on Merits set for 10/07/24
Yellow Jersey v FRC – Trial on Merits set for 13/05/24.
Meaning of Trial on Merits – “The phrase “on the merits” refers to a case whose decision rests upon the law as it applied to the particular evidence and facts presented in the case. This is in opposition to cases whose decisions rest upon procedural grounds. The distinction between decisions that rest on the merits rather than on procedural grounds is important because a decision on the merits is considered final and is thus bound by res judicata. If a decision is bound by res judicata, the parties involved in the case may not later raise those same claims in a subsequent case. Instead, a party that disagrees with the decision must appeal the decision, file a motion for a new trial, or a motion to reconsider”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/on_the_merits
Data on the Texas court website shows how civil cases are typically resolved with relatively few cases ending up at trial -
Dismissed by Plaintiff 41%
Agreed Judgment 16%
Default Judgment 14%
All Other Dispositions 12%
Bench Trial 8%
Dismissed Want of Prosecution 7%
Summary Judgment 2%
Jury/Directed Verdict 0.1%
The case is now designated "trial ready" with discovery due early September and, as previously advised, the trial set for 6/10/23.
*"live"
What an amazing bunch of investors here. This board has more information and quality discussion than most "love" shares.
The level of knowledge is truly awesome. Thank you all. It would be amazing to see a return on investment here.