Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. 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.
Think frontera have proved beyond any doubt that you can borrow money and wriggle out of paying it back if you have the right legal team in place
@Looed -- gotcha, thanks. You wouldn't think it would be this difficult, but perhaps the original counsel botched it.
WHamBoy – that’s a fair assessment. There are a lot of filings in this case with about 90% of them from YA’s side which include motions for summary judgements, discovery, appointment of receivers and so on, and I don’t see any win for YA to date. They now have new lead attorneys so maybe this is their attempt to turn things around.
I don’t know how long it took to get the UK default judgements processed, but they have been trying for over 3 years to get this resolved in Texas. I think YA might now face the prospect (assuming the company gets its win) of going back to the drawing board and having to start all over again. I think this is why we are seeing YA throwing the kitchen sink at this before the merits of their original approach are discussed in open court.
Let’s see if / how the company files any response.
Thanks for the update Looed.
This appears to smack of desperation on the part of YA. Is that how you read it Looed?
The merits being challenged relate to the arguments and precedent that YA are relying on to have the UK judgement enforced in Texas, not the judgement itself. In one of the earlier FRC filings I think they lay out the precedents required in Texas that YA should have relied on to have the UK judgement first recognized and then enforceable locally.
Without digging through and reading all the pleadings and filings, it just seems odd to me that a Texas court would rule it would have to re-try a suit on the merits rather than giving recognition to a duly obtained foreign judgement. Yes, a hearing or trial to determine whether to give it recognition because maybe there are procedural irregularities in enforcement or otherwise, but if they try it anew, that's totally disrespecting the parties' choice of forum in the underlying agreement and the decision of the foreign court. It would render choice of law / choice of forum clauses in contracts completely irrelevant if that's the result.
Just to clarify – this case is set for in-person trial in early October. This new motion will be formally submitted to the court on 4th September. This is a procedural issue for now and there is no hearing or discussion of the motion on that date.
The court will review the motion in its own time and decide what actions, if any, to take. FRC have the right to ask the court for an oral hearing on the motion.
YA II have filed a "Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgement" which, in short, seems to rehash their previous, and thus far failed, arguments that the Texas court should merely rubber-stamp the UK court decision without the need for a trial on merits that the company requested and which is due to be heard in early October.
This is the second time YA have sought Summary Judgement in the current case. This new motion is on the docket for 4th September.
Well summarized. YA got a default judgment in the first UK case, which the company got set aside by challenging the service of process. YA brought suit again and took another default judgment, which they are now again attempting to enforce. So the company has never fought the case on the merits, just the technicalities of servie and enforcing a foreign judgment. I'm sure the can is simply being kicked down the road and if/when the PSC and license are reinstated/extended there will need to be a settlement to get this behind them.
Ricardo2019 - This is the second attempt by YA II to use the Texas courts to enforce a foreign judgement against the company. YA originally sued the company in the UK courts for unpaid debt and was awarded, in today’s money, US$3.4m which included costs for the original UK trial.
During the first Texas case the original UK judgement was set aside due to a technicality. This resulted in a joint motion to vacate the first Texas case. YA then went back to the UK courts which ultimately reinstated the debt hence the second, current, case in Texas.
YA initiatives in the current case have to date failed. A recent attempt to send in the bailiffs was rejected by the court. The company requested a trial on merits which the court granted and which is scheduled for early October.
It seems Texas has very strict rules when it comes to these types of actions and the company appears confident that this second case does not meet the high bar set by the court.
This case involves the parent company, the same entity that holds our shares. Should YA prevail at court then the company needs to have the cash to settle the debt, offer assets in lieu of payment, or at the extreme, face insolvency if they cannot comply with the decision of the court.
If the company prevails and YA lose, then I suppose YA could refile again at some point. Though that means they have had to go to court twice in the UK and will have tried and failed twice in Texas.
As I read it, if YA lose then there would need to be at least two more trials. One trial for YA to have the foreign judgement recognized by a Texas court and then a second trial to have the judgement enforced. I believe the company is confident it will prevail in the current case because YA, in seeking to enforce the judgement have failed to first have the courts recognize the foreign judgement, so the court has no power to “enforce”.
Thanks Looed, appreciate the update.
Apologies but I have totally lost track of what this case (YA II PN vs. FRC) is about, and what the implications might be from the result, and if we are in a decent position to defend this one. Any reminders welcomed!
Thanks folks – one other date to keep in mind is 28th August when the civil court is scheduled to hear a motion in the Mourant v SN case.
You might recall that the FRC v Mourant federal case settled last June. Some filings in the federal case tried to link it to the SN case, so it is possible the civil action may have settled.
Typically, the parties wait until the mandated filing date before they brief the court on any developments, but they do sometimes file ahead of time.
Thanks Looed
Thanks once again for your effort.
I dream of the day that my 4 million shares will make a huge difference to my life rather than just be a source of huge regret.
I'd just like to chip in with a large expression of gratitude for all the work done and information posted by all the generous members of this board!
I have almost forgotten about my twenty odd thousand that disappeared, but it would be great to eventually read about some kind of swing towards a positive outcome for us all.
Very informative, precise and useful information as always Looed. Thank you.
Thanks for the update Looed.👍👍Come on Santa, please can we have a nice present from our company this year???
GLA real holders
The pre-trial formalities have begun with the filing of some procedural paperwork.
According to the docket, both parties must have completed mediation, completed discovery, and filed their motions by 5th September. The in-person trial is scheduled to begin 6th October 2023.
ZiggyZag – thanks for the clarification and I am glad I asked you about that last part of your earlier message.
Regarding the last part of your last message, I remember the judge (in the ZM trial) asked about the number of shareholders and I believe it was ZM who replied, “2,000 plus” or words to that effect. Whilst ZM was hardly a credible witness, the figure went unchallenged.
Massive disgrace, don't care for their own people
Looed
My preference as I am sure most would agree would be for a website that was used professionally by the Co to amongst other things promote / inform about it business and communicate with its shareholders ….but obviously we are not there at this point .
No I don’t propose a library of court documents
I do propose that the Co uses the website to inform us of developments that have been put in the public domain , certainly re concluded litigation.
For example ….Informing shareholders of their recent success in court against ZZ in Texas or their settlement of proceedings with Hope in Cali .
Whilst putting Co’s commentary on the finalisation of a case would be welcome I know that would asking to much presently .
You and others spend time / money digging out this info , the Co must be aware of that and I see no reason why they cannot communicate the examples above to shareholders as they occur .
Some may say its no great work in uncovering this info once links / alerts etc with sources paid or unpaid have been set …I don’t know ….but whichever it would be easier all round if we could rely on the company to inform us ……at the point when the info is placed in the public domain .
Apologise if I was less than clear in the last para of previous post .
Its the opposite of your take on it .
I am suggesting that ZM and other protagonists, via their own involvement and / or info gained from their networks would already be aware of developments as in my examples above , so the Co sharing that info via its website to shareholders would be of minimal , if any , value to them .
The efforts put in by yourself and others is of great value to other members on this board .
Alongside that that its clearly accepted by the Co that this board is a way of communicating to shareholders , currently via yourself and Jim .
You have to ask though ….what about the shareholders NOT on this board .
How many of them have any idea of ZM antics or indeed that he is out .
Do they know some sort of settlement has been reached with Hope …or even ….that the Co still survive’s .
I don’t think the world of FRR shareholders starts and finishes on this LSE chat board , however that appears to be the view of the Co.
Massive
What an absolute disgrace this current Georgian Govt are
Https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-66372353
The above link to a BBC article makes an interesting read about how some of the Georgian population feel towards Russian tourists visiting their country; and by implication the hostilities caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
No one wants to be governed to by an unelected despotic dictatorship.
Cavey
Hi Ziggy – If I read your message correctly you would prefer a website that is more of a library that showcases the main points of the various cases that have concluded or are still in play.
I don’t fully get your last point – are you saying the argument against your library idea is that it might give ZM an easy place to access these public record documents?