The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Why is the email address spelling ‘resources’ without the first ‘e’? Typo? Or a change to the web domain?
E-mail: fegl@fronterarsources.com
Why does StarRage get abuse for posting factual information? I hadn’t appreciated that pacermonitor had been updated so am grateful to him for bringing this to our attention. Rather than knock him, why not say ‘thank you’?
Best to all holders
Jester16
I see this differently to you. I’ve not seen a single coherent justification on how Hope is not in breach of his fiduciary duties when exercising a veto against funding that was clearly in FRR’s interests, even if not in Hope’s/Outriders. Can you explain that or give a credible reason how refusal was in FRR’s interests?! If not, there’s your answer.
Regards
I echo this. How can anyone be knocking StarRage for sharing accurate, verifiable, and hitherto unearthed information?
I’m grateful to him. I have a substantial holding and happen to be calm and quite optimistic about the eventual play but think the attack on those members providing corroborated information is entirely unmerited.
Regards
Is there a way I can contact you off the boards?
I’d like to discuss something with you.
Do you have a throwaway email address I can touch base on?
Kindest regards
I agree and the only reason that I’m quite calm is that I don’t believe that ZM would have permitted a ‘default’ for the sake of $2M and risk the lot. Instead, if there were any doubt about receiving the funding, he would instead have agreed to lend $2M subordinated to OMF’s money to ensure that the payment was made and no default and ‘buy time’ to secure funding or handed over 250M shares. The fact he allowed the time to pass by, thus creating a default, and not hand over shares allows me to infer 2 things: 1. He knows that he has a free roll of the dice in this litigation as if it goes wrong then he’ll hold on to the asset by paying them off; 2. He has access to the funds to allow for that.
1. New Nomad 2. Entitlement to pay in cash if we lose the default action 3. Ability to pay in cash if we lose the default action All the rest is secondary. If the above 3 are in progress / resolved / agreed then everything else is icing on the cake / bonus / manageable. Obviously, if we win the default claim / damages action then we’re off to the races... Anyone who has ZM’s ear then please request him to update on these areas.
A while ago, 4 investors made a trip to Georgia and were with ZM. Have any of those 4, who ZM obviously will have good reason to trust, reached out to ZM to see if there’s an inside line as to what’s going on and the probable prognosis? It’s obviously not market sensitive information as trading is currently suspended so as long as such info were released to the market prior to the suspension being lifted he may be very willing to be candid. If not, please could they if they read this.
Just considering options. One permutation I’d like comment on please. If an OOCS is not reached and we are found by a Court to be in default, do we retain the option at that time to make payment in full in cash? Or, are SH/OMF permitted to refuse that payment at that time as being ‘too late’ and insist on the asset? FWIW, I’m not suggesting that a ‘technical default’ caused solely by SH’s refusal to permit finance raising would amount in law to a default anyway.
I’ve asked s couple of times but never received any observations. Please can anyone tell me why FRR don’t just sell their rights to explore/produce from one part of Block 12. Whether that’s MK or the shallow fields or Tarabani. Why can’t we go to BP and say, here for $31M up front you can have all rights to 100% from x section. Then pay SH/OMF and clear all debt. Answers please...
If the NY fund didn’t materialise in time, is there any reason why ZM / FRR couldn’t just fire-sale the rights to part of Block 12 for $31M to pay Hope off? Even if that meant losing part of the Block. Say the gas at MK. Why not do that? Anyone?
This is my take on it FWIW. I think Jo / Cairn generally, may be at risk of being a witness at the trial determining breach of a fiduciary duty. I suspect Hope will try and argue that breach is a relative concept and that his conduct was ‘better’ than ZM’s etc. Pure speculation/ guesswork from me. However if right, how can they continue? One non-exec will be stating one thing and being contradicted by other directors. So, resign. Wouldn’t preclude a new nomad if analysis is correct. What’s interesting is why FRR want a Nomad and re-listing if they’re trying to shaft shareholders. Tends to suggest they’re aligned. All imho.
Dear SimonT Not now. Otherwise they couldn’t have got the term sheet signed. His veto is now suspended. So they could fire sale now and clear the debt. If it were otherwise, how do they get the Term Sheet signed off. Surely Hope would block that?
Dear Mole Only if you have a moment please. Any reason why we can’t sell part of Block 12 in an ultra-cheap fire sale to raise $31M? To BH, BP or ANOther.
This is unsurprising to me irrespective of the merits when you have an independent Director in conflict with the board. Clear conflict of interest. Irrelevant who is right or wrong. The suspension of trading then comes automatically as you need a Nomad. I assume that the waiting before resigning was to see if there’d be a prompt resolution between FRR and Hope.
Pls comment on this analysis. 1. NY fund stump up $60M. $20M used for debt. ZM / SN find, borrow, stump-up, loan the remaining amount. Equals phew! 2. If 1 doesn’t happen, FRR ‘fire sale’ part of Block 12. So, eg, sell their rights to any profit from MK for $31M and use that to clear the debt. Keeping Taribani. Or the other way round. Even if the figures are different, they retain part of Block 12 and clear all debt. Is there a reason that 2 can’t play out. Even if the PSA isn’t transferable - just run the activity through FRR with zilch revenue or return to FRR. Better than risking the lot. Thoughts?
Just imho. Dyor etc. Hope lodges defence. Negotiations proceed based on clearing the whole debt. This is only viable if NY fund stumps up (or BP etc). Pay Hope/Outrider’s debt off. Probably have to drop fiduciary claim for an settlement if it’s to be agreeable to Hope. Hope off the board. Then appoint new Nomad as until Hope off the board there remains a conflict. Then remove suspension from trading. Then BP / BH / plans for 2019. Timeline is tight. All within a month.
Yes. That’s my understanding of it save that ‘could lose the veto...’ becomes ‘has lost the veto’. Hence why they could sign the Term Sheet. That’s why the play here is to approve alternate finance (eg NY); clear Outrider debt then lift injunction because at that stage nothing is owing. Hope goes. We still pursue our breach of fiduciary duty claim for damages. All imho. Dyor etc
They could confirm matters not subject to the legal case.
For instance, that BP is the major!
Or whether the term sheet due diligence has been completed or the date that is likely to conclude.
The Q about breaching a fiduciary duty is answered by looking at the email exchange (pg 135; 10/10/18). SH is requiring payment (to himself) having refused permission to grant the company the ability to raise funds. I think that’s pretty clear where his loyalties lie. As for his demand at the end of the grace period (250 million shares from each of SN & ZM to cover the Sept coupon with the notes becoming payable) is where the most recent Term Note comes into play. Assuming converted to a full commitment - FRR can pay the notes off. This still leaves damages owing to FRR from the fiduciary failures and the BP announcement. Those two may prove substantial and positive. My instinct is that this will settle out of court with the notes being paid off and SH exiting the board.