Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. 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.
Lifeishard - at the moment it is unclear with the Trial on Merits still on the docket. But based on the SJ alone, the court has sided with YA and found FRC fully liable.
With multiple motions and dates in play and so close together the courts don't always file in order. I would suggest YA have prevailed until we see motions / appeals that dictate otherwise.
Looed / Monty,
Thanks for you thoughts and updates. Looed, your comment on judge stating its a “final judgement” does this mean this will actually be sorted by Nov court date, I am not fully understanding when this YA issue will actually be resolved? Kicking cans down roads can’t go on forever surely? With luck our leader’s legal team have an ace up there sleeve, if not , SN, please get a deal done to close this out, a deal that hopefully does NOT close us holders of our company out.
GLA real holders
A couple more filings have dropped but there is the potential for overlap and for events to already be obsolete.
Oct 5 - Judge signs a order confirming 9/11/23 as start date for Trial on Merits
Oct 6 - The same judge approves SJ, stating it is a "final judgement disposing of all claims between the parties"
SJ and Trial on Merits have always been treated as separate motions so we need to see if or how FRC respond.
Thanks Looed.
This is unsurprising news as the debt owed to YA was undisputed by all. To me, it seemed that FRR were trying to drag this out as long as possible so as to negotiate a repayment plan with YA, which has not succeeded, unlike the other cases with Mourant and Cali//fiduciary.
So now what? While this court decision is appealable, not sure it will be worth it as no one can alter the fact that ‘a debt is owed’. So (to me any way), the action brought by FRR earlier in the week against YA will now become a negotiating tool for a repayment plan, but in order to succeed, FRR will need to show its hand in terms of what evidence it has accumulated against YA. That aside, typically a judgment like this means, the debt has to be repaid in full and in a relatively short period. So, the ball is now firmly in FRR’s court.
Where do I stand? I am not happy because YA caused so much destruction in our share price over a period of several years due to their incessant forward selling. Do I think YA will negotiate with FRR on an installment plan? Depends if SN can convince them that there is no money in the company right now but he has a path to financial success for FRR. Also, from recollection, I don’t believe there were any PGs issued against this borrowing facility (someone can correct me if I am wrong).
Other scenario worth contemplating is if SN decides to pays from his own resources. On one hand, this would signal a massive positive sign that there is something big happening behind the scenes with FRR, but on the other hand, it means that shareholders will ultimately pay the price through the issuance of new ordinary shares.
Anyway, just some thoughts to put in to the stirring pot for further reflection.
The judge has granted the YA motion for summary judgement against the company. The court accepts the UK default judgement and that the company is locally liable for the judgement amount in full.
The verdict is appealable.
The status of the Trial on Merits in the case is now unclear.
It is impossible to tell from the filings what swayed the court given all previous and similar motions have failed. Though recent filings by YA did adopt the parts of Texas code that FRC had said was needed to have the YA claim recognized and thus enforceable.
We know that YA threw everything at this and only needed one argument to stick, so it’s unfortunate it did so at a hearing instigated by FRC who expected to have this thrown out.
We will have to wait and see if / how the company decide to respond.
Cheers Looed
Just to clarify the docket dates as they currently show -
6th Oct - hearing on Summary Judgement, FRC have submitted a Proposed Order for the judge to deny the motion.
9th Nov - at the request of the parties, court agrees to this revised date for Trial on Merits.
Looed's effort are pretty solid. Fair play Mr
5 years of us mere mortals doing sweet FA.
Had to laugh , 5 years and nothing changes with maddyp
No one’s getting charged for forward selling shares
Frontera aren’t the only ones in this world that try by hook or by crook to not repay debts
Does it say who requested extension please?
Looks like the trial date has changed from tomorrow to 9th Nov.
Eric - You might need to warn Mr Big to get ready lol? An Alex Ferguson quote springs to mind!
Remember a CRS in the Texas court will right a wrong negating any possible criminal case against YA for forward selling shares. However, should discovery show others have been shorting FRR , then they won't have the get out of gaol free card to play. The recall by the institutional Investor suggests this was happening, therefore, criminal cases could follow. If I remember correctly a senator or journal in the USA suggested possible racketeering charges. Someone leaked about the Arbitration to TW et al and now the can of worms might starting to open.
I should have added that the new case FRC v YA includes a claim for monetary relief of over $1m in damages. The motion doesn't breakdown the damages but should the case move forward, the actual claim could be much higher than this initial figure once the company provide more evidence to court.
What other companies have gone Ltd with such prolonged address to shareholders that have then succeeded, subsequently returned to market and returned wealth to the shareholders please?
Dulwichman, in reply to your post of yesterday,
It is reasonable to ask, “why now”. To date, YA filings and motions have been mostly procedural and skirted around Texas requirements required for recognition, meaning FRC have been able to have each Motion denied because the law / procedure has been on FRC’s side. The “facts” behind the case don’t matter as they already fail procedurally.
On Friday there should be an FRC requested hearing to finally discuss the meat and bones of the YA Motion for Summary Judgement. Prior to any judgement, it is up to YA to prove the debt is real via its filings and that there is no doubt that a default judgement should be granted. At the same time the company / defendant now has the right to introduce evidence to undermine the claim against it and support its own defense. From the FRC filing –
“13. The purpose of a motion for summary judgment is to allow a court to promptly dispose of unmeritorious claims and/or defenses. In seeking traditional partial summary judgment pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. PROC. 166a(c), YAPN bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact, and that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.”
At this point that “facts” come into play. The hearing is venue proper for FRC to enter evidence that calls into question the basis of the claims made by YA supporting Summary Judgement. If the court accepts there is more to the story than a clean-cut default judgement and that FRC has potentially raised a material fact, the court must (FRC claim) deny the motion.
It might also favor the company that YA have flooded the court with filings in support of a potentially frivolous, and potentially fraudulent, action.
YA have never filed the actual UK judgement with the court. They may have thought, or been advised, that a pro-forma abstract would be enough. But what if there is no judgement? It sounds almost too comical that a party would try such a blatant ploy but, after ZM, nothing should surprise us.
The new case – FRC v YA – likely seeks to prevent YA filing any more cases against the company and, if FRC prevail, saves $3.5m+ plus costs, and avoids (yet more) reputational damage.
I guess default served and held would prove difficulties in any potential future loans etc.
Many thanks Monti and looed. for your explanation over this.
I think it is worth noting for some perhaps that those who post on here who give their wisdom and advice so freely here who have professional qualifictions (and some clearly do) The Law in England and Wales is clear that "you speak with the knowedge that you have at all times" I would say even if hiding behid a nome de plume as on here . Sadley I have seen too many memebers of my own profession loose their qualifications by giving free advice which has been affected by too much time at the 19th in trying to help oout somebody. We are very blessed to have some on here who who are willing to give comment in a very careful way along with a sencible explanation of complex matters. A minor point but important thing which needed saying. Thanks troops
How important is the YA case? From a financial perspective, it is not an insignificant amount at c.$5M ( as per Looed previous message). But when you add all the legal costs on top of that, then it is a pretty amount for a company like ours. Secondly, there is still a reputational angle here, when you consider we live in a social media age and any creditor default will live long in the digital world. However the most important observation is this: Loan Sharks like YA are invariably shady outfits and normally ‘sail close to’ what is legal and what is illegal. What do I mean here? Well, I recall that the last payment due to YA (c.$180k) was Sept 2018, and FRR had the option to pay this in cash or issue shares. On this occasion, FRR exercised cash option which was not accepted by YA who were demanding shares as they had forward sold (we saw the huge trades going through the system days leading up to the payment date). These shares were never issued by FRR and we really don’t know how YA unwound this open position, as we were suspended on LSE-AIM in December 2018. So now what? Interesting that we learnt yesterday that FRR has lodged a new case against YA for this malpractice in the hope of forcing YA to the negotiating table. We know that YA is a pretty large and sophisticated company in the US and if FRR has the evidence to proof this forward selling, the punitive fine by the SEC could kill the company; there is zero tolerance in the US for this kind of activity.
So, tomorrow could be an interesting day in court and we await with an abated breath.
Thanks to all who are keeping this BB (and the flame) alive.
Looed/
Firstly as ever thanks for your update and careful comment. However for some of use mere mortals and I include my self I am yet again having a dose of the vapours or something.
What I am very unclear of is just how important this up and coming case is? Now I do appreciate that in leagal terms that all cases are as important as any other case they are simply up for judgement but from a lay point of view with still a number of other cases outstanding AND in different juristricions. Is this the crucal case where the outstanding case hopefully just fall in line? or just another case? I do appreciate this may be hard to answere especially due to the late night spanner in the works sadley I am not quite as positive as you. I preume the other side have a good legal team and other than a few late nights they should be able to come up with something.
I am gussing you an an officer of the court (I love that expresion reminding some people of their role is a bette noir of mine and to me often with some very amusing results!)
Erazzel
You’re right to suggest that if the value of the asset is large, then the amount we owe YA is insignificant. But no one would pay this amount voluntarily if the prize has even the slightest possibility of falling through. It highlights that nothing can be taken for granted as we chase the big prize.
If the box is not empty, and the prize is substantial then the payments and liabilities legally owed would be relevant to the size of the box and its content no?
So if payment could be made then why not just pay and collect the box?
ZM is now gone, perhaps YA can just be paid. Then what's next? If YA can't potentially be paid then why not? Why stay in business thereafter?
Like I said “if” we owe monies, do a deal or pay them, irrelevant if they tried screwing us over, it’s not personal, well for them anyway, it’s business.
we seem to have a light at the end of our tunnel?
My faith/ hope is in our leader SN, I am and have been for some time prepared for the worst, but “never” have I given up hope!
All things bright and beautiful all companies great and small?
GLA real holders
Another Trojan Horse to open up a can of worms?