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.
On 18 November I shared the statement that mentioned that the company is "addressing remaining legal actions".
They have now confirmed that the 18/11 statement does indeed include the recent moves by Mourant. They are actively engaging with Mourant and expect to "extinguish" (their word) this action soon.
Atlantic Council, US congressman, 25yrs involved in Georgia discovery.. our company was given a high profile stage, all involved in giving an ear to SN, IF we get screwed, its safe to say investing is these type of companies is just deception, SHs get screwed a lot of the time.
Thanks for the explanation Looed
Tabs, as I keep saying, positive beats neg all day long and forgive me for adding, you still check in, so you haven’t totally given up as your write up states. Nothing for certain but am keeping the faith, also, coggy’s humour has stepped up a notch while yours has gone in reverse, snap out of man.
GLA real holders
If it doesn’t end well for us then surely it can’t end well for Steve either?
Im not sure why anyone holds out any hope
Who honestly believes this will end good for us i certainly dont . SN is a disgusting human being as far as im concerned
Thanks Looed that's made it a bit clearer for me., and thanks for all your hard work, hope it all turns out ok for us all.
MontiBurns - thanks for your message and sharing your thoughts. However your comments on regulatory requirements are not correct. Morally correct, sure. But not in Cayman.
LongshotEd – This was originally a company debt that the company could not pay so SN (and ZM) took it on under personal guarantee. I expect that if FRC fails to settle as agreed then Mourant will again pursue SN in Texas.
Monti
Great Post. Especially last paragraph.
Thank you for your observations Looed, it makes for a more constructive discussions, if for nothing else, at least a piece of mind for the tormented. Also, I want to say that we are all grateful for your efforts in terms of being a bridge between us and FRR Team.
At the end of the day, we are all investors in FRR (some bigger than others albeit it’s relative to each of our personal financial situation) and we are all keen to see this situation conclude with a positive outcome. However, it should not be on the basis of ‘our eyes wide shut’. My post yesterday was trying to decipher why the liquidation of FRC would contribute towards ‘the finish line’ in a positive way.
On minimum mandatory regulatory requirements (which encompasses shareholders et al), it is always the case that a limited liability entity is required to produce audited accounts on a yearly basis. However, a company may be exempted to this requirement via a special approval. But given the number of limited liability companies within the FRR Group, I would be surprised if no accounts were produced for any subsidiaries. Furthermore, the dissemination of false information from FRR’s senior management (on the decision from the Arbitration Tribunal for example) or material movement of assets from one sub to another, without seeking shareholder consultation is not a conventional protocol in a proper investing environment. Now, it is also true that there were probably good justifications for going down the passive-shareholder-comm route given the rogue Company Directors (ZM/Hope) and fatal challenges facing the company.
So, in conclusion, and especially after yesterday’s news that Mourant had applied for a winding up order, my trust/confidence in SN was shaken to the core, hence my optimism hitting a low ebb.
According to your chronological timeline, company sent you a message on or around the 18 November saying under the leadership of SN, they were working through all legal cases. But at that time, the company had already received a statutory demand notice (on the 18th Oct with final payment date of 10 November) yet made no reference to it in that message. While I don’t know the ins-or-outs of the situation, it would have been wiser to say nothing rather putting a positive slant on it by giving the impression that everything was in control under SN’s leadership. So, it seems the US$150k was not made on 1st Sept and not a super big amount for SN but unfortunately showcases ill-intent.
Should shareholders be afraid that we will be dealt in the same was as some of the Creditors?
So does that mean the company is now responsible for the debt and SN is off the hook???
You might recall there was FRC v Mourant Federal case as well. This case linked to the Texas civil case with the company offering to dismiss the Federal case in return for Mourant accepting terms to settle the Texas case.
The latest Cayman filing states that the following settlement in Texas, the company became the entity responsible for the debt.
WHamBoy - well spotted. The case was indeed Mourant v SN, ZM. However the terms of the deal state that the money would come via "entities subject to SN's control" which is why the case is Cayman based and they are going after the company. Where they to go after SN in a personal capacity then it would make sense they would file in Texas as his place of residence.
Looed -thanks for the update. I have a query however regarding the Mourant case - on the15th July you posted that Mourant was v SN (from memory it was initially ZM as well). Can I ask how it suddenly became v FRC? Did I miss something or have I got the cases all mixed up? Thanks
This is a chronology of events –
1st payment of US$150K due to Mourant as per settlement agreement by 1 September.
Delayed payment to GOGC of up to US$6.1m due 15 September.
SN / FRC (and others) host the Georgian Ambassador on 18 November.
Mourant served its Statutory Demand (SD) for monies owed to the company on 20 October with a compliance deadline of 10 November.
Mourant filed its Winding Up Petition on 30 November stating that “the company has failed to satisfy the SD by this date or at all, and has raised no dispute or objections to the monies owed”. We only became aware of these developments once the Winding Up Petition was filed in Cayman on 30 November.
On 18 November I shared this message – “We have continued to make progress thanks to Mr. Nicandros' leadership and that of our team in our long road back to business that is still in progress. Rest assured that when we are able to share details we will, as we still are addressing remaining legal actions.”
I have been trying, so far without success, to find out if this “new” (to us) action by Mourant falls under the “we are still addressing remaining legal actions” part of their message given the process to start Winding Up was already in motion and the litigation with Mourant was settled but not officially over.
The MoU was signed in November 2022 albeit with a missed payment deadline (nothing new there!), but that MoU was signed with the full knowledge of the remaining litigation and, you would think, knowledge of how the company would proceed in those cases. It is also possible the litigation is now a side-show as far as the GOGC is concerned (that is just a theory). For example, FRUS appears protected from the likes of FIC / Hope.
This is hardly the first time FRC has been sued, and by much more dangerous parties than Mourant. Each of those cases that have ended / settled / remain open had or have the potential to sink the company. The difference here is the Winding Up Petition which of course has a ring of finality about it. This is a legal tactic and the company has 6 weeks to resolve this issue before it has to head to court to explain itself.
Back to the MoU, the assignment to FRUS is through FRC, and FRUS is a wholly owned subsidiary of FRC. It is logical to assume that any action to wind up FRC would have implications for deals involving FRUS, unless there have been other deals made after the posting of the GOGC accounts and which we cannot see.
MontiBurns – you wrote “As far as shareholders’ comms are concerned, it does not matter if a company is registered in the Caymans or is a privately-registered entity, shareholders have certain minimum rights to information as owners” If you can show me what law enshrines these minimum rights, and that the law covers Cayman and / or Texas I will be happy to present it to them and see if it makes them budge.
Best board on the lse by a country mile, a very varied input that covers everyones feelings / emotions at one stage or another from our delist.
As always I am sticking with the ever so slightly positive ones written, all be it even those writers seem to be like myself clinging on, for myself, no way our leader has come this far, where we now see him sitting so cooly next to Dustin, court case after court case to throw the towel in?
I truly hope I’am not proven wrong here but he simply does “ NOT” come across as this type of guy?
Small as it may be, we have positive pieces of a jigsaw being formed here in-front of eyes, that beats negative every time folks.
Keep the faith all real holders, black swan squadron flying over between 23-24?? Merry Christmas folks, I wish you all health & happiness with a very large dose of great wealth on top
I think JV123’s initial thoughts are right: SN and his team are playing hardball with YA and are effectively telling YA that they need to settle asap or they won’t get any of their money back. Mourant are making their logical next move : trying to enforce their payments through the courts, which allows YA to see how easily they could end up with nothing if they choose not to deal with FRR.
With Frr's record would think that before they have the renewal Frr would have to show that they are clear of any legal obligations & that cannot be done if SN keeps trying to avoid payments that should be made.
Maybe SN and the potential Buyer are waiting for the licence to be renewed before hands are shown.
We know we're waiting on decision from GG on renewal, if we don't get it, why pay Mourant.
Decision expected soo. Don't read too much into the Ambassador, maybe just to show hospitality and share plans.
Here is a question that I often ask myself. If you invest in Aim in good faith and your shares get taken off the market and there is no route to sell (for 5 years)is this or could it be classed as a capital loss officially. Ive used capital losses in the past to offset gains. If there are any tax gurus out there that may be able to shed light Id be very interested as im sure most on here would be.
Agree that this really needs to come to an end one or the another.
If SN is full on serious that there is really anywhere near the amount of oil & gas Frr claimed then he needs to pay up & not f.c.k us around any longer.
There is that Monti, why as a Creditor push to liquidate a company if there is nothing much of note to liquidate in it? So they must know there is something they can get from it or force SN's hand to defend it by seeing if he will put up the money to protect it. In which case SN would only obviously do if there was something there worth protecting.
So FRR must have some value left in the data they hold, etc. Or it would be a pointless and costly waste of time pursuing.
So we will likely either see SN pull some notes from under the bed or FRR wound up and sold off. As has been said why has SN bothered to continue with FRR unless there is go in it.
I don't think any of us want it to end and walk away empty handed and I am hopeful that will not be the case and seems to be the best thing to do. Again as has been said this does all need to end at some point as I think its p*ssing us all off with it dragging on with seemingly just the wish of SN to drag it on further for no particular purpose it is coming to seem.
Maybe we have reached the point where the cards must be revealed ??!
The saga has gone on long enough tbh. Good or bad, it has to end.
It would beggar belief that SN goes to great lengths to save FRR from extinction only to lose it all through his failings to follow through on what he agreed. Is he that untrustworthy and dishonest ?
Either he expected a deal to be finalised and it’s delayed or there is no deal and therefore no money.
Maybe Looed will get a response to clarify things ??
I don’t see any good news with this development. I mean consider after all the legal back-and-forth with Mourant, SN agrees a repayment plan of c.$1.1m, which specifically excluded ZM share of this liability, only then to renege on this deal a little later on is perplexing. Infact (from memory), there was a relatively modest installment due in September but majority of the payment (two-third?) was pushed forward to February 2024, so not financially overwhelming for SN.
Perhaps someone can be kind enough to ‘break it down for me’, of why letting a creditor force the liquidation of one of your main companies is a positive thing?
The other observation regarding whether the payment to the GG was made or not, and this coinciding with a recent visit with the Ambassador; my guess is that this was not made. So, perhaps, the meeting with the Ambassador was probably to smooth things over again and to kick this can further down the road; this is only my supposition!
As far as shareholders’ comms are concerned, it does not matter if a company is registered in the Caymans or is a privately-registered entity, shareholders have certain minimum rights to information as owners, which we have been deprived for the past 5-yrs.
My optimism level is very low.
Frontera true to form then in not honouring their agreements. So if this the finish line or just the finish of FRR?
The upside of this is that is forces SN and possibly SH to either dig into their pocket to sort out the financial mess the company is in or we get a payout when the company is wound up. Assuming of course the company data and whatever is left of the license agreement and possibility to extend is worth anything much.
My guess/hope is that judging by what is supposed to be there it could be. I think though it would be better financially for everyone if SN, etc dug into their pocket to save this one. As I understand it the company needs to sort out it's financial/legal problems before the GOGC will grant a new license. So better for SN to pay off these debts and get more money back as a result in the near future. A no brainer really, sure he has to in theory risk a few million dollars of his to do it but you have to take calculated risks in life to gain anything, otherwise you just sit their hoping things will get better, hence why this has been dragging out so long.
As gloomy as this news seems I think it could potentially have an upside as at least it stops all the dragging out for seemingly no good reason and we finally get to see if we will get a return.