We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
From an article about recognition of foreign judgments in the U.S. It talks about the various reasons for nonrecognition.
https://www.carltonfields.com/insights/publications/2014/recognition-of-foreign-country-judgments-in-the-un
"2. Fraud. Foreign judgments “obtained by fraud” need not be recognized by U.S. courts. Here courts distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic fraud. The former consists of some “fraudulent action by the prevailing party that deprived the losing party of adequate opportunity to present its case to the court.” The latter is predicated on allegations of improper conduct within the foreign proceeding, such as perjured testimony or falsified documents.
As a rule, intrinsic fraud will not be sufficient to deny recognition of a foreign judgment. Extrinsic fraud may be sufficient, depending on its seriousness. However, if the foreign court had considered and ruled on the issue of extrinsic or intrinsic fraud, U.S. courts will generally not second-guess the foreign court’s findings."
What FRR seem to be arguing is intrinsic fraud, which will not be sufficient to deny recognition.
If FRR manage to see off YA and sell this for what it's supposedly worth, I reckon they'll be using Mills & Boone to create some more wealth, from the book! 🤑🤗
They seem to now be using the recognition hearing/process to raise challenges to the underlying claim that should have been made at the UK proceeding. Instead, they took TWO default judgments, not even mounting a defense. Not sure if the Texas judge will be sympathetic to that. The question will be why didn't FRR raise the defense of fraud in the UK, the UK courts are better suited to adjudicate a UK fraud claim than a court in Texas.
I recall they had used Haynes & Boone in the UK to get the original default judgment set aside because FRR were improperly served but that was the extent of their response. No defense on the merits.
If YAPN have committed fraud in UK jurisdiction they will have bigger things to worry about than bringing a similar claim in the US legal system. I'm no legal expert, but suspect there are not many differences in proving fraud, which in law I understand is difficult to establish, furthermore no lawyer would knowingly and actively defend illegal activities, seems YAPN are in a difficult position.
Question remains how soon will matters be resolved, but clearly, revealing this now is prudent. Interested to see if this will actually go the [legal] distance.
Whats next?
Given that this new case challenges the allegations made in the current YA trial, shareholders should prepare for the hearings on Friday to be moved and the possibility that the cases will be combined in some way if the judge agrees that FRC arguments should be heard. I think this puts YA in a very difficult position on how to move forward if FRC allegations are correct. Might be a busy few days in the courts. So, possibly a delay though FRC seem eager to move it forward.
"8. YAPN’s claim that a debt was owed to it on June 24, 2021 when it sought a judgment against Frontera before the High Court of England & Wales was false and its presentation to the High Court constituted fraud on the High Court.
9. YAPN and Frontera Resources Corporation, prior to the filing of the High Court claim, agreed to exchange YAPN’s debt claims for equity in Frontera Resources Corporation, thereby extinguishing YAPN’s debt claims.
10. Thus at the time YAPN filed its claim in the English High Court on June 24, 2021, its debt had been extinguished by its agreement with Frontera to exchange its debt for equity in Frontera. See the Affidavit of Giorgi Kalandarishvili, Chief Financial Officer of Frontera, and the Affidavit of Steve C. Nicandros, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Frontera Resources Corporation and its Chief Executive Office at the time of the debt-for-equity exchange.
11. Contrary to its agreement with Frontera, and in breach of its agreement with Frontera, YAPN filed a false claim in the English Courts seeking recovery for the debt it had voluntarily extingished by its debt-for-equity swap. YAPN’s unethical conduct in defrauding the English Courts, and now seeking to defraud the Courts of the State of Texas by seeking judgment for a debt it had exchanged for equity is so egregious that it is repugnant to the public policy of Texas — conduct that also justifies non- recognition of its judgment."
Got it, thanks MadP
Looed - No. What I was referring to is the conversion of preference shares held by YA. It was suggested that YA were forward selling these shares and when FRR issued a cheque instead of shares twice, an institutional investor which lent out FRR shares called them in.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/FRR/update-ynf5komxb0stw83.html
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/FRR/further-re-update-o7qvq8ko5p8r8uc.html
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/FRR/update-regarding-ya-ii-pn-ltd-matter-326pgmwnl61zuxg.html
Looed - that makes sense and we saw the same approach v Hope. He sued us so we sued him, all later negotiated away.
WHamBoy - The documents filed in YA v FRC do appear to be in reply to the YA motion that will be heard, hopefully, on Friday.
FRC v YA is a new case, related but individual that will have to go through all the standard court procedures and timetables. Strong case they intend to litigate or a more of a hat in the ring to apply pressure on Friday (or both).
They certainly kept these new allegations (as far as the courts are concerned) ready to go at a critical time.
Thanks Looed. Are these docs all in advance of the trial on Friday? Or is it all kicking off earlier than that?
I thought it interesting that YA had accepted equity in FRR in lieu of money owed. What percentage I wonder? And it also referenced a Georgian financial official for Frontera - I wonder if he is still with us or has since left us.
Thanks again Looed
Is it ever a dull moment?
It's an image file so I will try to copy later, having problems right now.
FRC claim one count of "fraudulent and misleading liens".
Nothing else filed so far.
There is also a 12 page reply from FRC that goes over all the arguments around recognition and enforcement. This nugget caught my eye -
21. Although this entire lawsuit concerns YAPN seeking recognition of a foreign- country judgment, YAPN has failed to supply this court with an admissible copy of the alleged judgment in question. The only “evidence” of the alleged judgment offered by YAPN is the Affidavit of Dean Nichols, attached as Exhibit A to YAPN’s motion for summary judgment.
22. YAPN’s “Exhibit A” cannot be considered by the Court as admissible evidence on entirely distinct hearsay grounds.
Oops!
Pt 2 of 2
11. Contrary to its agreement with Frontera, and in breach of its agreement with Frontera, YAPN filed a false claim in the English Courts seeking recovery for the debt it had voluntarily extingished by its debt-for-equity swap. YAPN’s unethical conduct in defrauding the English Courts, and now seeking to defraud the Courts of the State of Texas by seeking judgment for a debt it had exchanged for equity is so egregious that it is repugnant to the public policy of Texas — conduct that also justifies non- recognition of its judgment.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, FRONTERA RESOURCES CORPORATION PRAYS:
That this Court:
1. Enter judgment that the “judgment” for which Plaintiff YA II PN, Ltd. seeks recognition be denied recognition;
2. Grant it any other relief, at law or in equity, to which it may be entitled.
Pt 1 of 2
(MadP, is Pt.7 onwards what you where referring to in your earlier post?)
Defendant Frontera Resources Corporation (“Frontera”) respectfully states:
GENERAL DENIAL
Frontera enters a general denial.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Without waiver, Frontera states that all pleas and defenses are plead in the alternative to the extent any plea or defense conflicts with another.
3. Frontera denies that all conditions precedent to YA II PN, Ltd.’s (“YAPN”) alleged cause of action have occurred or been performed.
GROUNDS FOR NON-RECOGNITION
4. Pursuant to the standards for non-recognition of the judgment of a foreign nation, the “judgment” that YAPN seeks to have recognized does not meet those standards and may not be recognized.
5. The holder of an alleged final judgment issued by a foreign country — not a U.S State or Federal court — must always file an original suit, TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §36A.006(a), NCCUSL Cmt. 1; UNIF. FOREIGN-COUNTRY MONEYJUDGMENTS RECOGNITION ACT §6, Cmt. 1; RESTATEMENT (FOURTH) THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, §482(a); and obtain a final judgment that determines that the judgment issued by a valid, recognizable foreign country is entitled to recognition by the State of Texas. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §36A.004, NCCUSL Cmt. 2; UNIF. FOREIGN-COUNTRY MONEY JUDGMENTS RECOGNITION ACT §4, Cmt. 2.
6. Recognition is neither mandatory nor automatic and the defendant is always entitled to an opportunity to defend the suit seeking recognition. TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §36A.006; Society of Lloyd’s v. Ashenden, 233 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 2000).
7. YAPN’s judgment is the result of material fraud, which is sufficient unto itself to prevent recognition.
FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL ANSWER YA II PN, LTD. V. FRONTERA RESOURCES CORPORATION AND PLEA FOR NON-RECOGNITION OF FRONTERA RESOURCES CORPORATION PAGE 1 OF 3
8. YAPN’s claim that a debt was owed to it on June 24, 2021 when it sought a judgment against Frontera before the High Court of England & Wales was false and its presentation to the High Court constituted fraud on the High Court.
9. YAPN and Frontera Resources Corporation, prior to the filing of the High Court claim, agreed to exchange YAPN’s debt claims for equity in Frontera Resources Corporation, thereby extinguishing YAPN’s debt claims.
10. Thus at the time YAPN filed its claim in the English High Court on June 24, 2021, its debt had been extinguished by its agreement with Frontera to exchange its debt for equity in Frontera. See the Affidavit of Giorgi Kalandarishvili, Chief Financial Officer of Frontera, and the Affidavit of Steve C. Nicandros, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Frontera Resources Corporation and its Chief Executive Office at the time of the debt-for-equity exchange.
Madp frr entered into the agreement with YA. knowing full well what would happen. They also new what was owed to hope
Thanks to both Looed and MadP for clarifying, am believer of life that “if” we owe monies, you pay it back. But your explanations does show YA as not squeaky clean.
GLA real holders
Lifeishard - this case is primarily about due process. The company argues, and the courts seem to agree, that Texas has a specific set of checks and balances that must be followed if a foreign debt is to be recognized which then makes it enforceable and which to date, YA have failed to follow.
Lifeishard - YA were taken to court for forward selling shares and very quickly settled out of court. IMHO this forward selling trashed the share price and possibly stopped FRR raising money. FRR may have been in a much better financial position and the court cases with SH/O and FTI may not have happened. Therefore, I do not think it's bad karma not settling with YA, but the bad karma they gave FRR biting them back.
Thanks Looed
If our company owes monies, then deals “ should “ be struck to pay it back, its bad karma to try and roll anyone , I’am sure we all feel like we have been rolled over at times, I certainly have, but am more of mind there is more good than bad, so staying hopeful.
Come “S”aint “N”ick, Christmas is coming
GLA real holders
On 16th Sept I posted –
“Another batch of filings by YA. This batch attempts to show the courts the repeated efforts of YA to get FRC to comply with their discovery. YA have filed an "Emergency Motion to Compel" discovery ahead of the trial set for 6th October. No counter filing by the company in response to this as yet.”
In total, approx. 10 motions and supporting exhibits were filed by YA in September in support of the Emergency Motion to Compel.
Back in July, a hearing was held on a YA Turnover Motion (another kind of enforcement ploy), and we already know that the company prevailed. In the September filings, YA had to make the following admission regarding the hearing on the Turnover Motion and it does read that FRC won all of its arguments on that day -
(In the following, YA is the “Plaintiff”, and “Abstract Judgement” just means YA filed a 1-page summary of the original UK judgement)
“On July 10, 2023, a hearing was held with the Court on a motion filed by Plaintiff wherein it sought a Turnover Order after an Abstract Judgment was issued. Plaintiff also sought Sanctions against Defendant for failing to respond to earlier propounded discovery, despite being compelled to do so by the Court. At the hearing, the Court determined that a Turnover Order was premature, and sanctions were not warranted because the Court had not yet recognized the UK Judgment, a condition precedent to the Plaintiff’s requested relief.”
We cannot rule out the possibility that the court might decide to recognize the debt. Balance that with the fact that YA’s case is (or was) almost entirely built around enforcement, YA’s dismal record of multiple failed motions, and the fact the court seems to clearly agree with the company regarding the need for recognition as a precursor to enforcement. I wonder how confident YA really are?
You can tear them up , do what you want but you ll still be on the register
so yeah , brill thing to do wish i had my share certs to tear up
is that similar to “ oooh , I could crush a grape “
That would be a stupid thing to do wouldn't it ...?
Having had these shares for so many years, should i tear them up and forget about them.