The latest Investing Matters Podcast with Jean Roche, Co-Manager of Schroder UK Mid Cap Investment Trust has just been released. Listen 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.
Perhaps after reading Taffy's posts other posters will refrain from the queries 'Why didn't we pay the $2m' or 'Why didn't we give SH/O shares?' It is obvious to anyone reading the aforementioned posts that SN and ZM have been operating with both their hands tied behind their backs. Also, they've had to deal with the invasion of Georgia; the drop in the POO; the difficult geology of Block 12 (the Permian in Texas took decades to crack); the arbitration with the GG; plus the time and money constraints of proving up a vast resource. Furthermore, this has all been achieved with 'strong commitment to ensuring the health and safety of our employees and contractors; responsible stewardship of the natural environment; and recognition of the importance of the communities in which we operate.'
https://fronteraresources.com/csr/#environmental
IMHO this doesn't look like a badly run company that some posters have referred on here previously.
Taffy - Brilliant job of communication. Thank you.
2nd that one & thank you from me.
Excellent post, Madpunter, thanks.
Thanks immensely to taffy and to Madr also. Great stuff. When taken in full, without interruotion, it should be planinly clear that we have a very strong case and that Hope's should be increasingly untenable.
Good luck to all the genuine people.
MadP has hit the nail on the head. Yes, Zaza and Steve could have given Hope 500 million shares back in October but they dug their heels in and refused to capitulate. We need Discovery and the witness box to bring all this into the open. I would also like to know what Hope knows about why ‘the company may find its value appreciating dramatically in the next several months.’
Interesting read as it fleshes out the detail and history behind the 2016 legal conflict that eventually gave rise to the mediation agreement (and the appointment of an ‘independent’ Board member)!
While the information and Plaintiffs attempt to relate it to current Defendants behaviour (through a history and pattern of behaviour that alludes to OMF/Hope’s nefarious efforts to take over Frontera one way or another), I’m sure their lawyers will, inter alia, dismiss the declaration as unrelated matters to the current issues before the court......as, while Plaintiffs version of events will no doubt be disputed, it was an adversary complaint filing that was ultimately resolved through the mediation and therefore can’t now be revisited or hold any bearing on the current ‘facts/issues’ before the US Court now.
Irrespective of the above......the big takeaway for me was the inclusion of SH as one of the recipients of the email erroneously including “FRC's financial advisors at Rothschild & Co., that MND's board of directors had approved a resolution to acquire FRC itself with the support of VTB Bank, a Russia-based banking group” and therefore “MND had no intention of entering into a farm-in agreement”. This surely goes to illustrate a long term subversive pattern of behaviour by OMF/SH to ultimately sell/takeover FRC for a higher gain over and above the mere recovery of the loan notes. Additionally, where I had previously assumed SH appointing himself as FRC Board director was a matter specifically agreed in the mediation agreement, the revelation that the agreement wording stated the appointment of an ‘independent’ Director surely supports Plaintiff’s assertions.....as he can in no way be classed as independent!
It will be interesting to see how the US Court views this, as well as Defendants response/explanations!
To clarify.....in the 2nd paragraph in my posting below.....I’m not intending to say Plaintiffs can’t revisit the 2016 matters in the current Court action but rather, I wonder if the Defendants will include such an assertion in any response!