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.
I also did this (on more than one occasion) but sadly never received a reply.
Dulwichman - I used quotation marks as I was directly quoting from the company message that JimSlade recently shared with us. I re-checked my message thread as they also reference a couple of litigation matters that need dealing with. As you say, seems they are laying a pathway for when we can expect improved comms.
No problem Baramara.
I was communicating with Bryce Linsenmayer who was at Taylor English at the time (I believe he may be working elsewhere now). I sent details of my holding and then I had a communication back from info@frontera-resources.com answering my original question, but which said first "after verifying your holdings".
Sorry for being a nuisance ODR but did they confirm your shareholding, and what email address did you use,
Thank you for the info ODR.
Baramara: when I last tried to communicate with the Company in October 2020, they wanted details of my holding and address so they could "cross-reference with the stockholder register" before replying to me.
That suggests they do have such a list.
It’ll be most welcome to all shareholders if the company would confirm the fact that they are in possession of all registered shares and shareholders, having seen and heard mr Nicandros addressing (in the past) the Atlantic council I’m sure that he’s a just and honourable man and would agree to this request.
Many thanks looed as ever. Interesting that you put the words " Couple of outsatnding matters" in quotation marks in your update. Anybody hazard a guess if the American version of "Couple" translates into English in the same way ie 1 or 2ish matters. If it does and they turn out positive this would re shape the landscape from our perspective in at least the legal definiition of of a short time period ( Ie for ever!) and we will will know and understand a lot more and with light at the end of a tunnel may even to able to return to the normal ups and downs of the active Commercial world. I predict by Xmas of this year we may be able to possible have so kind of hope turning in reality . No doubt I am wrong! Time for another Heart starter Chin Chin
The optimist in me got me into trouble more than once.
"Why fight over an empty box?" One has to be prepared and
I thought I was. Now I am in a mess and lost for ideas but young
enough to cope with success. Giving while living and dying in peace
without pain is my dream and keeps me sane.
The frr slogan "why fight over an empty box" might just be the optimist in me but looks like it's getting closer for all us to accaully see what is in the box and I for one is very excited.
Now I'm not going to lie the whole way through all this with unbelievable amount of time and effort ones have put in (not going to lie I'm not the man for that absolutely useless) they have kept my dreams alive that one day I might be able to buy a camper van if this ever came back and at times all we have is dreams.
So what I'm trying to say is a massive thank you to the guys that have kept my dreams alive and I am super positive the big box is bursting at the seems
Yes , many thanks both Looed & Jim, your information is appreciated by all share holders of our company, I am hoping still “ all things are bright and beautiful, all companies great and small”
GLA real holders
Thanks Looed, sterling work as usual.
Let's hope we prevail in finding a mutual agreement before October.... 👍
As expected, the court has granted this motion. The signed order isn't showing as yet so we don't know if the judge made any additional remarks to the proposed timeline.
We have seen other cases in which opposing parties come together to kick things down the road to allow for the possibility of alternate solutions.
Baramara – it appears “UA”, at least in this instance, means “under advisement”, which I think is much better for us than unauthorized absence (see below). Hope you agree and thanks again for your help.
I have more news that I can share from the company.
In the YA II v FRC case, the judge heard the YA II Motion to Appoint Receivers. The court declined to rule in favor of YA II and took the case “under advisement” asking the company to file further motions in support of their position. The company believes they prevailed at court, the case will be set for trial (as previously requested by the company) and they are confident they will go on to prevail at trial.
Further, I can confirm that this case is one of the “couple of outstanding matters….(that) hinder our ability to discuss” (cropped from Jim’s message from the company).
That’s the end of the update.
I think it is a small yet significant admission as we can now link the release of information to specific cases, rather than rely on the vague generalized “news soon” type comments of the past.
Let’s see if further filings support the company position on the recent hearing.
I can understand that some might see this update as yet more delay while we wait for another trial. That is one way to look at things, but certainly not the only way.
Purely an observation, but except for the ZM case, none of the cases we have been following have actually gone to trial. These seemingly never-ending, intractable cases suddenly seem to find a way to settle.
Thanks Looed,
Ps, I very much appreciate everything you do to help fellow investors, if you need a top up of translation funds just let us know.
Baramara - I don't think so as that particular case is YA II v FRC, a corporate level case so ZM isn't a named party. The case is related to the enforcement of a foreign judgement against the company. ZM / SN might well have played a role in the events related to the case, but its the company that is being sued.
Like I’ve said before, I’m not up on the politics of all this but could it be that the fact that ZAZA’s unauthorised absence have any baring on this ?
Thanks Baramara - that sounds feasible. Lets see what gets filed and hopefully explains what went on.
According to google UA means unauthorised absence in American law.
Ziggy – I should have added that their message was in response to a message I sent referencing Hope-related cases and specifically, the Motion for Continuance in FIC v SN. I stated they cannot leave shareholders thinking “radio silence” will continue for at least another year nor give the impression that legal matters had now ground to a halt.
WHamBoy - just to play devils advocate, it could also mean they had a bit of a wobble on Monday. The hearing to appoint receiver did take place (it's recorded on the website as "hearing held UA" but no idea what "UA" means) but nothing filed thus far. Even if there was a wobble, it's the Hope-related cases that are the main events. I will keep checking the YA case file and hopefully I can report a 'no wobble' decision soon.
You are right though, a lot of time money and effort continues to be poured into this.
Thanks Looed and Jim for sharing.
I have always taken solace from the fact that those running the company were spending a lot of time and money keeping the company alive. It suggests that there is something worth saving and they believe that they are likely to be successful. And I agree with Looed that given that we were in court with YA on Monday, the fact that they have since emailed Looed and Jim in such a relatively upbeat and positive fashion suggests that Monday was nothing to be worried about. With any luck, they are right that things will be sorted in the near future 😄.
Ziggy - they refer to a couple of issues (same as Jims message) which I take to mean litigation, as most of my discussions with them revolve around those issues. We know there are still two Hope-related cases out there whereas YA II and YJ are of lesser consequence. Thats also what I get from the message that Jim kindly shared.
Time is always relative in litigation (as we have seen! ) but they have now narrowed things down by referencing a couple of major issues remaining "as it unburdens itself of litigation" (as per Jim's post) rather than the more generic terms of the past i.e. "forward progress".
There are a number of hearings, motions etc. in the works right now. This is just my opinion, but given the timing of these messages, I hope they are letting us know work is ongoing behind the scenes despite the timetables of some of the motions before court.
They know we are watching how these cases play out and will be immediately knocking on their door as the cases progress.
Looed , Jim thanks for sharing your messages….appreciated by all I am sure .
Looed in your summary of the message you received you wrote… (but not all of it, some is inconsequential)….Just to clarify , is that your view , or was that in the text of the message ?received .
Does this mean that no operational / business progress has been while all these court cases unfold or are concluded?
So it is effectively 100% focus on litigation??
Thanks Looed as always for all you do.