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.
Sorry Phil_2018, My spider senses were correct... (Bull is one thing, but please don't insult people that have also lost a lot of money in this share, more than you.)
3rd May 2020: 14:47 - I've put a few grand in this share, I could do a lot of positive stuff with the money if it came good. If it doesn't I can still go on, I will be the poorer for it but I will get by.
24th Aug 2018: 19:08 - Evening all, I am new here but have been invested in this stock since April of this year. It has indeed been frustrating waiting for this stock to come to fruition. That said I belive it will do. The fact that this Zaza guy hasn't sold out his stock and seems to me from his podcast to be a straight up serious guy suggests to me it has some go in it. Some people I have seen on here say he is charismatic, I don't see that, he can probably do a press conference or shareholder meet well enough. For me though a straight up serious guy is more important than a flashy guy that would try and pull the wool over investors. I don't think he would try to do that, after all he is a big investor himself in this company and one that is presently losing out until undeniably good results come out. I'm not sure what the hold up is here, I think this week he should either publish the expected results from the wells we are expecting T45
"Just before delisting my shareholding doubled in value over what it was when I bought it. " I question this sentence... Please do share when you originally bought and at what price. I do not recall this ever-doubling in price. I recall many share issues and consolidations...
So we're waiting out to roughly October, about a month's time to hear on the YA court one? Unless of course they come to an agreement first.
My guess is that it's going to go to the court dates and then the parties will work from there on whatever judgement there is. That tends to be the impression I get.
My hope is that FRR is moving towards something eventually positive here?
Just before delisting my shareholding doubled in value over what it was when I bought it. Things were looking very bright then. Then the delisting and all the bad news. A lot of that has been worked through now but we haven't yet resurfaced. Wouldn't it be good to have those times of looking ever upwards back!
Baramara - are you asking if the continuance is due to lack of legal representation? If so, then the answer is no. The parties state in the motion for continuance that -
"Recently, the Courts in the California Federal Action and the Texas Federal Action have dismissed those lawsuits.
In light of those dismissals, the Parties are now able to focus solely on this Lawsuit. Although the Parties have conducted initial written discovery, they need additional time to complete discovery before the trial of this matter can occur. At this time, it is necessary to complete written discovery, depose fact and expert witnesses, and obtain expert discovery.
A continuance would provide the Parties adequate opportunity to focus their efforts on completing discovery and preparing for trial in this matter. Without the continuance of the trial setting and currently pending deadlines, the Parties will be unfairly harmed and prejudiced and unable to adequately prepare their respective cases for trial."
I think you might get more accurate search results if google something like "motion for continuance (or whatever word / term you are searching for) in Texas civil law / code / court" rather than rely only on Wikipedia, as the laws can vary state to state in the USA.
Looed, I love your last 3 words, very positive indeed š
GLA real holders
Wikipedia , American, law joint motion for continuance.
Absence or withdrawal of counsel?
Hi MontiBurns ā I prefer you think of my posts as opinion. I will always flag direct messaging from the company as such.
In your second paragraph you say, āWe had all thought at that time (following the execution of this agreement) other major cases between OMF-Hope and SN-FRC would have settled but atlas, we are none-the-wiser.ā
By āmajor casesā do you mean FIC v SN or do you have another case in mind ?
The cases in which Hope / OMF was either named plaintiff or defendant have settled. The joint motion for continuance in the FIC case is a direct consequence of the settlement in the Hope-specific cases and signals a shift in the relationship.
You mention the grim reaper ā in ZM we not only met the G.R. but got to experience first-hand his scam to cull us all, yet we prevailed.
Looed, your depth of ongoing legal matters concerning FRR is astonishing and (for us mortal shareholders) gratifying. Can I assume that some of your messages posted here are being reviewed/cleared by someone at FRR to ensure the accuracy, particularly noting some of the granular details in your posts? Nevertheless, while we are stuck in what seems like a perpetual vacuum on official news from the company, your posts are helping many desperate shareholders of ākeeping the flame aliveā (including myself). Five years on, I am sure we may have sadly lost many to the grim reaper (just a sad fact of life).
With regard to FICvsSN, one thing that gave me enormous comfort was the signing of the global legal agreement with Hope, which saw the California case fall away. We had all thought at that time (following the execution of this agreement) other major cases between OMF-Hope and SN-FRC would have settled but atlas, we are none-the-wiser. Recall at that time, we speculated that perhaps Hope was given some Royalty payment scheme whereby he would recoup his debt from future oil sales. But I donāt think this proceeded as we thought, because otherwise Hope would have instructed the Liquidators to cease all proceedings.
Anyway, perhaps the closure of the YA case may finally allow the Company to say something to their saintly shareholders, in terms of future plans But until then, we have to be grateful for your posts.
Thanks
One more point - You might wonder why this case is based in NYC while all the others are in Texas. This is because the FRCC liquidators retained NYC based counsel. In the eyes of the court this means FRCC has "property" in NYC and so can proceed its action in that district.
Tsbs1 - we don't really know. But back in January this is what the GOGC said -
"As the chairman of the agency, Giorgi Tatishvili, reported to "Business Partnerā, "Frontera" returned 99% of the license block according to the international arbitration order. It has 1% remaining where the Oil and Gas Corporation operates.
āThe local company of āFronteraā is in liquidation mode. As the liquidation process is underway, and not to deteriorate the economic situation and not to spill the oil, this oil is managed by the state itself. However, at the same time, we are negotiating with the American management of āFrontera", which has a desire to continue working here, but with the condition of fulfilling the terms that were put forward by the arbitration, because the amount has to be paid. So there is an opportunity forā Frontera " to return. If this does not happen, the state will continue to work there,ā ā says Giorgi Tatishvili."
Elsewhere, we saw various sums of money being quoted that the company said they had via the support of US banks and financial institutions.
As expected, a tweaking of the dates to accommodate the recently filed YA Motion for Summary Judgement. The company have swapped the dockets and advised the court as follows -
"Hearing on YA II PN, Ltd.ās Motion For Motion for Traditional And No- Evidence Summary Judgment in the above-styled and numbered cause is set for hearing on Friday, October 6, 2023, at 10:00 A.M. by Order of the Court."
This means the Trial on Merits will need to be arranged for a later date, possibly taking the October 9 slot but so far, nothing filed to that effect.
As a reminder, this is the latest in an along line of attempts by YA to enforce judgement with all previous attempts failing. Though the latest motion includes some of the "helpful suggestions" put forward by the company, it does rely on many of the same arguments as the previous motions. Of course there is always the chance YA will prevail.
Why would the company agree to switch dates and put back their Trial on Merits so YA can attempt to get Summary Judgement? There could be many reasons, one could be that a failure by YA to obtain Summary Judgement (again) is the court telling YA they don't have a strong case and which might then be a factor in any subsequent Trial on Merits.
Hi toatie - the full name of this case is "FRCC & David Griffin Bankruptcy Court". The main reason it isn't discussed too much is because nothing much has happened in the case. The case was filed in 2019. FRCC (Frontera Resources Caucasus Corp) is one of the Cayman entities under liquidation along with FIC and FRGC.
In simple terms it is an attempt by the Cayman liquidators to try and find value via the officers (SN, ZM) as they haven't been able to realize any value in Cayman. The filings discuss all the same Hope-related talking points as the FIC case. As far as I can see, the company have never filed any response to this case.
The original filing in October 2019 was a "Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Proceedings" and the judge granted the right to proceed in January 2020. Nothing seems to have happened and in April 2022, the judge asked the legal equivlent of "whats going on here?" In reply, a report was filed to say the liquidators are monitoring the FIC v SN, ZM case and will await the outcome of that case.
Hard to say if this case is already dead in the water (hence the lack of action) or if it might present a danger at some future point. It does cover many of the same issues as FIC v SN so I assume this case will go the same way that one does.
With all these cases coming to a conclusion with settlements, what can frr actually be promising them
We dont even know what they still have in terms of land and psa
Hi mate what is this case never seen this one before today thanks. NYC Bankruptcy proceedings.
ZiggyZag ā nothing stupid about questions around these cases and I only hope this answer doesnāt confuse you more.
As I am sure you know, the Cayman action involves extracting value from the remains of the entity. The USA case is against its officers due to the ongoing failure of the Cayman action t extract value.
In Cayman, Hopeās inability to provide funding became something like the ālast strawā for the JOLās and their already frustrated efforts to realize any value from the entity being liquidated. In a report dated February 2021, the JOLās conclude they had reached a dead end and there was nothing left to do other than call on the GOGC to terminate the PSC, which we know did not happen. The report ends asking stakeholders if they have any ideas on how to proceed. We do not know if they got any reply.
FIC v SN was filed in Texas in August 2021.
If the asset does now sit with FRUS, it is protected from any Cayman related actions, as stated in the original plaintiff petition in the FIC case which comments that FRUS is āanother Frontera entity that is not subject to obligationsā under the loan notes and other agreements. If you recall the company instead allowed for a 5% royalty from FRUS to offset monies owed.
The FIC v SN case involves claims against the individual officers and whilst Hope isnāt a defendant in FIC v SN, the case does for the most part revolve around events related to him. As in Cayman, the liquidators need to be realistic as to what they can / cannot achieve. Now the parties appear to be cooperating.
As far as I can recall there was no further update on the situation in Cayman. The NYC case has been dormant since early 2022.
The remaining cases are -
FIC v SN
YA II v FRC
NYC Bankruptcy proceedings.
Whatever might be going on in the Georgian courts
The small claims by Yellow Jersey
Spudsoil, if we get one penny back from our investment, I'll show my arris in Woolies window.
thompson, my machine's off too lol
TSBS, not sure where the info attached came from but all online. Some fraud cases, same board at YA it seems so FRR been up against it but the truth is out there. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2012-2012-209htm.
Machine off .
Good question ziggy im confused about it all now too are we totally just down to two cases to sort and thats it
cant think what frr must be offering everyone- probably our shares š. SN probably convinced all the concerned parties heā ll get our shares from us some how one way or another
Monti & Looed, many thanks for your thoughts & updates , keep the faith folks, its Sunday so wouldnāt hurt to sing or hum my favourite hymn, all things bright and beautifulā¦.all companies great and small
Good luck all real holders
If Iād been offered 10 cents on the dollar for my FRR investment a couple of years back, I would have taken it. Didnāt seem like there was a way back when all the info emerged in 2019/2020. I wouldnāt take 10 cents if I was offered it now. Not sure Iād take parity either actually. Might be foolish thinking but canāt help thinking something is brewing. A few hurdles left to jump but rather than new hurdles being put up in front of us, as was happening a couple of years ago, itās the existing hurdles that are being dismantled one by one. Fascinated to think how this will eventually turn out. The impasse canāt last forever (I think!) and fingers crossed weāre in the closing stages.
Looed thanks for your latest summary
I am a bit confused so I need to ask what will probably seem stupid questions
You say re the FIC case (I think )
ā¦.. Though not exactly a like-for-like situation, we saw in Cayman that Hope was able to end proceedings by withdrawing financial supportā¦.
Are you referring to the whole liquidation saga covering Liquidators actions in Caymans and USA via NY bankruptcy courts ?
I cannot recall seeing anything from liquidators / Caymans / NY courts saying case finished
Has the liquidation process come to an end ?
If so what is the final outcome / standing of the the liquidated Coās , are they now officially closed with the assets that were transferred to FRR US now totally secure in that Co ?
Hi MontiBurns ā Thanks for the summary. Just a couple of points to add.
YA are claiming US$3.4m+ ā āEntering judgment in favor of YA II and against FRC in the sum of $3,431,380.47 as of June 28, 2021, with post-judgment interest thereon at the rate of 8.25% per annum from the date of this judgment until paid together with all costs of Court in this behalf expendedā
It looks like there might be some re-jigging of hearing dates in this case with the hearing for Summary Judgement possibly going first. The dates seem a bit out of synch on the court website so hopefully the site will align soon (it doesnāt always) and we can see if that really is the case.
The FIC case covers a lot and involves, amongst other things, claims of breach of fiduciary care, not least against ZM and Green Capital (his instrumental role not fully known to parties at the time of filing), loan notes and Hope.
Though not exactly a like-for-like situation, we saw in Cayman that Hope was able to end proceedings by withdrawing financial support. As stated in a letter submitted in the ZM case and in regard to the liquidation of FRGC - āOutrider has provided an amount of USD 90,000 to date for the fees of the joint voluntary liquidators and JOLs of the Company. This funding has, or shortly will be, fully extinguished by the JOLs fees to date. Outrider has confirmed that it is not in a position to provide further funding in respect of the PSC and there is currently no other funding available to the JOLs.ā
FRGC are also a defendant in this case. The correct title of what we call usually call the FIC v SN case being FIC & FRCG v SN & ZM.
Lastly, and I know it doesn't feel like it, but there have been a number of official press releases post de-list. These include information on ZM, Outrider, relations with the GG, plans to return to Georgia. People can rightly say press statements aren't what they want, or the information isn't enough in terms of content or frequency, but these releases are official and available online. I don't know why they don't just put them on the website. I might be wrong, but I think those pressers might pre-date the new website so hopefully going forward that is something they can address.
Last official news Jan 2019. Since 24th of December 2018 FRR investors have been kept in the
dark and only Looed is reporting keeping us in informed. Shorts collected profits from IG and
investors live in hope. Investment Industry is in decline for obvious reasons.
You could argue that the YA case to be relatively small given the claimed amount is c$2.3m, which leaves the FIC vs SN, being the most significant case. On one hand, it is a shame that YA have not tried to settle this but I guess as the amount is small and the YA business model is such that they cannot be seen in the public domain to be soft on defaulters as this could be bad for business (being a corporate loan shark).
On FIC vs SN: this case is being fought by the liquidator on behalf of FIC creditors, mainly being the Administrator himself and OMF/SH. Therefore I am not entirely sure how much input/directions Hope can give as this is following a prescribed regulatory process (unless SH stops funding). However I must admit that my memory is fading a little now and this case perhaps relates to the breach in Fiduciary duty by the Company Directors; the PGs being claimed through the Texas County Court and my not be included here but I donāt know current status.
While the company remains ex.communicado to shareholders, it is worth reminding Mr Nicandros that the last official news from the company was in January 2019, although I will acknowledge that a lot of the legal issues have been resolved satisfactorily, including obtaining a permanent injunction against ZM.
From a bigger picture perspective, we still have an expired PSA in Georgia, legal costs owed to GG from losing the Arbitration (although hopefully this is getting paid down from FRRās share of oil production) and unfriendly political party.
Still lots of hoops to jump through but, step-by-step.
Just some Sunday morning thoughts, concluding with respects and regards to the usual suspects for keeping this bulletin board alive.
Robin Dunnigan is good news. Stanberry lecture educational
but of no interest to FRR investors ?
Mapp is still there and needs good news to keep going.
FRR was a shock, HL the last straw, NWG an eyeopener.
Finance is for insiders who collect Millions with ease
while the rest of us is there to be fleeced.