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.
Furthermore, as SH/O was the LN holder that instigated the liquidation process for FRCC, then SH/O may have requested FTI to stall the process by looking into the transfer of Block 12. This could then allow time for the default in the Texas case, resulting in SH/O being paid in shares instead of cash. Hence the defence by SN which has resulted in the default judgement being denied. Also, ZM may have expected monies from FRCC via FTI to pay the wages owed to the workers in Georgia, after the settlement of all debts. If SH/O knows that the money is available in FRCC or one of it's subsidiaries, then now that the default is denied the Texas case may be withdrawn.
You are full of sh 1t .... I really hope we meet 1 day ;)
ATB
I see the rat has turned in the kitchen!
Tsbs - IMHO FRR have been advised by BP with their access to PALANTIR, hence my post from last month copied below :-
Posted by Madpunter on the 31st October :-
Arbitration
Assuming that my theory about the arbitration is right and the GG get the 5% RA when FRCC is liquidated, then ZM, SN and LB would have expected this to occur before the arbitration hearing in October. This hasn't happened and the timelines could have been calculated after FTI started the liquidation process of FRCC. Therefore, by dismissing Akin Gump in June (see extract from the court papers below) FRR could then request a six month extension to allow the process to unfold. As the extension is only to allow the liquidation of FRCC, (enabling the GG to get another 2.45% of the oil under the PSA and terminating the arbitration) and the case is now in the NY courts, it should be completed before the extension date. Assuming this series of events, then FRR would no longer require representation in the arbitration as the process is about to be resolved by the liquidation of FRCC. IMHO the court papers show a complex series of events to enable enough time for production revenue to meet FRR's obligations, remove SH/O and settle the arbitration. After reading those papers one would expect FRR to have had a crystal ball to be able predict the series of events, or in Tolkien language a Palantir. Doesn't BP have access to PALANTIR, who "amongst many, many other things, it seems they also help when" 'Prosecutors are building stronger cases against insider traders'(taken from Earsbern's post on the 28th October in the 9th post down of the link below). IMHO if Palantir has that sort of expertise, then creating this series of events wouldn't have been a problem.
67. First, the Liquidators were informed on July 9, 2019 by Akin Gump that it ceased acting
for FRGC in the Arbitration a month earlier on June 9, 2019.
https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=27
We don't know if the process has reached the point where the 5% RA has reverted to the ownership of the GOGC. This may be why the licence hasn't yet been extended past 2027. Alternatively, it may be the GG using it as leverage in the political arena. IMHO this complex series of events over the last year has been planned for in the majority of circumstances.
So what was StarRage - You sold you holding before 24th Dec or you sold and shorted FRR ?
Looed - Thanks very much for the info. Much appreciated.
You've done that on purpose haven't you brgmg69?
You've turned my FRR message board into a stack of green boxes.... :-)
My thoughts exactly. Currently, the shares are worth 0p. If shares were passed to Outrider, then they would ensure that the shares had value, which would mean our shares would have value too. If there is any value in the empty box, then it would be better for us if someone actually took the box and made something of it. Currently, I see Zaza and SN doing nothing with it. (apart from the speculation everyone is making about them). Zero comms from the duo running our company... That is not good news. There is no NDA in place anymore. If there was, then a simple statement to say so would help put minds at rest. They could also put a simple statement to market to say they are working hard on clearing up issues and bringing the stock back to the market. But we are getting zilch, nothing. I am not a fan of outrider, they are a business that wants to make money, but on the other hand, I am not a fan of Zaza and SN, they appear to be a business that has stolen our money, and are not appearing to make a business out of it. That's just my opinion. I await to be cut down as an enemy.. (Truth, I am just a shareholder that is out of pocket more than I am comfortable with.) As for BP involvement, all we know about that is it was written in a court document. Where did that court doc get us? How much of it were lies?
Rodders,clearly he should have handed over the shares.if he had done that instead of defalting those and our shares would of had value.
Seingred: surely SN's response could have been to hand over the shares? Which presumably he would do if he didn't think we had a future. But no, he is not doing that ... So clearly he wants to keep them.
I concur with star,if the shares are worthless its cash. Best to deal with facts rather than playground personal attacks.
Sn has to respond.its not a positive or negative,although court cases instigated by frr have been failures so far so it is very hard to see how one instigated by hope is going to be more positive ,it will just hit sn personally in the pocket .
Thanks Earsbern for some positive news for a change. Good to see H on the ropes and Steve landing the sucker punch. Let us hope for more good news re arbitration.
Thanks Eastbern,
This is a cut and paste job on some of the terms you mention -
The doctrines of Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel are affirmative defenses to claims or issues that have been previously adjudicated in Court and may not be pursued by the same parties. The parties are precluded from litigating those issues and claims a second time.
https://www.rjylaw.com/res-judicata-and-collateral-estoppel.html
Passage of time or laches relates to the passage of time and statue of limitations
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=qrmsoRD0eLAC&pg=PA155&lpg=PA155&dq=passage+of+time+or+lachesl+in+california&source=bl&ots=Nv7RE-Fre8&sig=ACfU3U20z__TS4mm-bF-_UJNvbyeRAn-pg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi__NrJ6vXlAhUOTsAKHSBnA_0Q6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=passage%20of%20time%20or%20lachesl%20in%20california&f=false
OK - I give up on the copy.
Very broadly, I believe that 40-46 state that
SN denies all allegations not otherwise explicitly denied, pleads that OMF has failed to state a claim which can be granted, that OMF's claims are barred 'by res judica and collateral estoppel' (?), that OMF's claims are barred by the passage of time or laches' (?) and that OMF's claims are barred 'for failure to join FRC an FIC as indispensable parties'.
SN also reserves the right to amend (his) answers, including any affirmative defences after a close investigation of the claims.
SN also pleads to be awarded costs and legal fees.
That's it.
Sn's attorney is Robert P. Vining of Schouest, Bamdas, Soshea & BenMair, PLLC of Houston.