The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register 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.
Yes that is a distinct possibility that SN could gobble up the company by making an offer to the creditors. But is that privilege not open to all creditors, more specifically to Hope? Do they really want to get involved in a bidding war for an insolvent company? And what are assets in the company and associated value (if any)? No, I don’t think that is SN’s Plan, especially when you re-read the company’s statement this morning: “We are working closely with Deloitte to return the company to the pre-windup status quo for the benefit of all stakeholders”. It specifically says all stakeholders but then we are reliant on their word, which has been less reassuring in the recent past. Is there another unexpected turn in this long, seemingly never ending saga?
Sorry, I duplicated tsbs1's question without realisng.
> he can buy whats left
This is very intriguing, but if he's buying the remains (I'm thinking this is a bit like buying back a car that an insurer has written off) with his capital then he's the owner and no-one else, not Hope, not us. How would this work for us I wonder?
Well now I'm even more confused and even more stumped as to why SN won't talk properly to us. My theory about SN trying to avoid the liquidators has gone out of the window. The fox is talking to the hounds, not running from them. This makes no sense. Who in FRR did that message come from?
Exclude Zaza and pay special or regular div,?
Avi8r,
How does that work, if sn buys whats left then that wont include us he will own it all himself. The only way we would be included is if he paid everyone needing paid out of fronteras bank account
Anything else then becomes a guessing game for us
Thanks, great explanation and overall its what i thought ......as i say money is written off in my mind
Montiburns - an excellent commentary and explanation for the uneducated.
My take on this is through allowing the insolvency to proceed places the company away from the debtors and its now Deloittes responsibility to gain whatever financial compensation it can to appease those. Quite often creditors get nothing.
Assuming SN has deep enough pockets then once Deloitte have settled or identified the amount to satisfy creditors he can buy whats left and return to market. That being an extremely simple generalisation, but it does appear, reading between the lines, what is happening.
Potentially its good news, it means the company can return to market, but also at significantly or potentially lower value than prior to delisting.
My only hope is that SN is true to his word, and so far there appears to be no evidence to challenge that.
Last part of a lovely tune.
When I am old and frail
I wonder what will come next?
Will I be happy, will I be sane?
How sound has been my brain?
Que sera, sera, etc.
Noobody with brain is caught
on AIM. Gullible Mugs are tortured and die while the sly
ignore their cry.
Take care, life is not fair.
Ill try lifey but I cant see how a deal can be struck.
Im a bit lost with it all now tbh. The only thing that makes me wonder is the georgians havent just put a tender out for our block because forget the rest of the noise thats the crux of the matter. If there is no licence they might as well just wrap up
Saucysausage - ‘stakeholders’ is a generic and a commonly used word to describe all parties that have an economic interest in a company, which includes shareholders (although the last ones to be paid out in a liquidation scenario). Clearly your depth of knowledge on corporate affairs is a little dim but don’t worry, there are many here who are qualified and sincere to provide a free education.
As far as ‘stringing along’, well, this company has been delisted for over 5 yrs so there is no financial benefit in doing that; but all well-reasoned opinions are welcome.
Having said that, we are at a very critical point in time, so let us unpack the company’s earlier message to plot a trajectory in terms of where this could be heading.
“ We are working closely with Deloitte……………….and we are advancing a joint formal plan in this regard.
Is this plan or proposal to offer something to the creditors? I would think so but how much to the dollar?
“We are grateful for the positive and professional, collaborative relationship we’ve established with Deloitte.”
So good rapport struck straight off the bat. It is in Deloittes’ interest to finalize a deal which will make them look good in the marketplace if they can get any recovery out from this company. Remember, they have already stated in the shareholders notice that FRC is insolvent plus they have ‘uncovered significant liabilities to various creditors’.
Tabs, nothing for certain here, keep the faith, as hard as it is, keep the faith
To the real holders here, I revert you to my statement below on others with new names will follow.!
“The boat trippers who like to look in windows are here and am sure they will be back, but their guards are down now, so lets watch out for new names popping up, bit like the lady boy 1,2,3 bore”
Looks like one has joined the forum
Monti has summed it up perfectly on our leader could have closed this up long ago, he hasn’t because in my mind he fights for us 💪👊
So to am going to email Nurse Ratched to give the boat trippers there cigarettes back, this might keep them from posting, I doubt it though, because once your in that type of nest, you don’t leave it.
GLA real holders
Chipolata. I'm assuming you have your reasons for wanting this to happen then...I wonder what they could be...?
So they have tried to weasel out of everything for 5 years but Deloittes have got involved and sn and co have met their match. The licence in frus if we have a licence is worthless. Maybe this will all be put to bed and over and out this year
Bet s hope wishes he d never been so greedy, come to think of it wish I hadnt been
If it is not from a potential farmout deal but instead iextended by SN, how much would it cost the ordinary shareholder in terms of more dilution? But again, if we were going to be shafted, comms would be dead imo.
====================
They don't have control over the company anymore.
Stop twisting the story to suit what YOU need to hear.
It is game over. Goodnight Vienna. Finnito. End. Stop stringing these poor victims along.
'stakeholders'
So its goodnight shareholders. As we already knew.
ODR1 - the fact the company continues to update us through the Looed conduit is a big plus for me. They have had ample opportunity to slam shut the comm-door on numerous occasions but continue to convey key messages in a somewhat timely manner. I agree that it is no coincide that the company message was timed to Deloittes shareholder notice. Also, the fact they say that they have established a very constructive relationship with Deloitte suggests that are deal may be on the table. For the creditors, as much a it pains them, getting any thing back from an insolvent/in administration company would be a gain in their P&L. But perhaps it has got personal with one or two of creditors like YA but let’s see their reaction.
Anyway, the questions worth considering now is, how much can FRR offer on the dollar and where will this money come from? If it is not from a potential farmout deal but instead iextended by SN, how much would it cost the ordinary shareholder in terms of more dilution? But again, if we were going to be shafted, comms would be dead imo.
So, on the face it, todays revelation can be seen as positive. I also recall a post from Looed that said there is a whole legal team managing all of FRR’s cases, so perhaps this course of direction/action was envisioned.
Bezzy: The Deloitte statement is clearly genuine yes, but please show me where it confirms what we've been told by the Company, ie that they're working with the (now removed) Directors on a plan to un-liquidate FRC?
Apologies if I have missed it.
Morning ODR,
Given the statement link takes you directly to the Deloitte web page, I'd say it's genuine. Not sure there's any merit in asking - you may get the same answer.
We'll wait to see what Looed says in response to Monti's question around how he came across the Deloitte statement. However, given the close proximity of postings, I would say the both were provided to him at the same time.
Looed,
Thank you for keeping us informed. Much appreciated as ever.
Bezzy
And they've obviously released the statement to Looed as they realised they were going to have a lot of bleating on here from us lot having seen the Deloitte statement.
It seems to me we are being treated like low life, being thrown the occasional morsel at appropriate times to try to stop us from revolting.
Thank you for sharing this Looed.
My initial reaction was "good". However, on reflection, albeit brief, it seems to throw up more questions than answers:
1. As Monti has eloquently posed already: Why let it be liquidated in the first place?
2. Why didn't they tell us this immediately after the liquidation?
3. Is this just more costs (paying Deloitte etc)?
4. Is SN just stringing us along?
It just doesn't make sense.
And one thing that seems pretty certain is that those who were hoping for a quick outcome of this sorry saga will be sadly disappointed, as this could take many many months.
Anyway, the first thing that should be done is to get Deloitte to confirm the statement is true. That will answer number 4. I will be writing to them today.
Hi Looed, many thanks for the update.
Can I ask please, did our leader and his brilliant team furnish you with the deloitte statement info or did your good self find this out prior to the message from our leader.?
Thanks also Monty for your input and thoughts.
GLA real holders
So is this good news Looed? Me personally, I am a little confused by the company’s message. Why? Well on one hand, FRR let the winding order pass through the Grand Cayman Court ‘uncontested’, but now on the other hand it is working closely with Deloitte to return the company to the ‘pre-winding up status’. I assume, they are working on a similar concept to Creditor Voluntary Scheme (CVS)?
It could signal that FRR may offer, say 10cents to the dollar, to extinguish all creditor claims and return the company to previous ‘status quo’, ie a valid solvent entity. If this is the case, then two things come to mind: 1) FRUS is still part of FRC group and may still hold the PSAs for Georgia and Moldova. And 2) SN/FRR has some money to go down the route of partially settling some Creditors outstandings. But what’s the motivations for doing this now? Also, I can’t see the creditors saying, ok we defer our claims until the company starts selling oil, which means the PSA being renewed by the GG as well as securing significant new investments. Or, perhaps a farm out deal has been reached (the dream scenario) and this is where the money is coming from? Whatever the case, this company message does signal ethical behavior from SN as he is trying to look after many stakeholders, while noting Deloittes comment that they could not identify any ‘liquid’ assets.
So, as per the CWR (Company Windup Rules), the Liquidator must opine within 28-days whether the company is solvent, insolvent or doubtful solvency. Here is their opinion after the 28-day period, noting the winding up order was granted on the 16 Jan.
“The Liquidators have reviewed the books, records and information that is available to them. Following that review, the Liquidators have not identified any liquid assets of the Company, but have identified potentially significant liabilities due to various creditors. Accordingly, the Liquidators have determined that the Company shall be regarded as insolvent, and having made that determination, the Liquidators will convene a meeting of creditors in due course in accordance with the CWR. The Liquidators note that they will keep their initial determination of insolvency under review for the duration of the liquidation.”
Hardly a revelation but I have to admit that the approach taken by Deloitte is professional and courteous and we look forward to their findings and reports.
Thanks for sharing Looed
“We are working closely with Deloitte to return the company to the pre-windup status quo for the benefit of all stakeholders, and we are advancing a joint formal plan in this regard.
As this unfolds, more info will become available. We are grateful for the positive and professional, collaborative relationship we’ve established with Deloitte.”