Member Info for Arsenal221

Going what has been said on judges last write up would think that any OOCS would be no worse then neutral i.e Frr paying the $20M that has been talked about. Overall though even on that basis would say that I think, is still around $10M less then what L/Notes value are.

Good seeing that Frr are not showing on court lists including updated appeal list..

Agree that good on having YJ occasionally posting.

Overall never thought that the crap that the scum on Advn came up with was anything worth thinking on.

Thanks
YJ

Thanks

Overall it is just the scum from Advn are trying it on by giving this crap of which is not unusal
Enjoy.

Agree on that as nothing is certain until it is confirmed.

Why potentially correct?

Going on judges thoughts/ruling on last hearing would not think that would be the case & amending summons against Hope.

Will add that as it seems that BP are still interested then that would be another very big reason why would think the oil, is still flowing.

I am sure though that all would like to see some form of update of which just might be released sometime soon, if there is an OOCS very closing on being signed off.

Extract below is from Rns dated 16 November.

So would be thinking that on having that work carried out & also generally running of Frr then oil is still flowing.

The Company has successfully completed a technical study of Taribani wells drilled by a previous operator and has selected the following wells for workover operations: T-16, T-24 and T-31. The intention is to clean these wells and check well integrity for future sidetracking/drilling operations in order to drill and complete the wells in the Eldari B reservoir.

Overall things look as though they are pointing towards an OOCs & on that being the case, but still need it officially confirmed.

Reach Rns that has been mentioned.

The amendment to the summons is by Frr, as it is them making the claim. So on that basis Frr on them dropping the main part of the claim then that can only be for an OOCS. Unless they are adding to the claim of which at the moment looks very unlikely. So would think that Frr are the only ones who can take this further.
Let's hope though we get a nice looking Rns released by end of week, early next week then we can finally stop trying on working out what is happening.

.As SB mentions along the lines of, in that post on Frr dropping Fiduciary breach claim that there would not be anything meaningful for the judge to rule on/give judgement on.

Fozz, my conclusion is slightly different. Infact I think it points to an OoC settlement. Why? Well, the hearing is an amendment to the summons FRR served originally on Hope/OMF. We know from previous judgments from the Cayman’s that even after an out of court settlement have been reached between the parties, the Court has still slapped in a judgment/penalties on parties, particularly relating to Breach of Fiduciary cases. I think this hearing will probably see the summons amended and maybe the Fiduciary breach claim will be dropped by FRR. Also consider that according to the respectful poster ‘oopsi’ on LSE, the Listings for the Appeals Court for April have been published and interestingly FRR appeal is not on that list…as of now.As SB mentions above that on Frr dropping Fiduciary breach claim that there would not be anything meaningful for the judge to rule on/give judgement on.

As the judge has generally told them that OOCS is best way forward then would think very unlikely he would intervene with his own judgement.

If it is the case that Frr has come to agreement on an OOCS then news might be released by end of week.
As always though it is a wait & see.

Thanks
Generally that is how I am thinking on this that Frr not being on appeal list, as well makes it look like this is going on an OOCS.
Enjoy

If somebody can post above last one on ii under heading 27 March.
Thanks

On this going all the way of which it is still not looking. Hope would be risking much more than $20M. It even might include prison as has been mentioned before of which would depend on the evidence from discovery.