Member Info for Avi8r

Defendants have not yet analyzed and definitively determined whether they may later file a motion to extend these discovery deadlines or seek to stay them pending the outcome of any Motion to Dismiss they may file

That means Hope. The defendant is Hops and his 'counsel', read lawyer as in LLB, is seeking discovery from Frontera. Interesting they are all now digging for evidence and wonder if this is merely a tit-for-tat exercise.

This karolina is a moron. Pure and simple. Tries to come across as knowledgable and informed but demonstrates pure ignorance by the inability to get the basics correct. Its not ex partie, it is 'ex parte'.

The constant foul language from it further serves to prove an uneducated angry person. Many have suggested it could be that well know clown, tw.

Plaintiff is a person or persons bringing a case against another in a court of law.

In this instant, Frontera are the Plaintiff and Hope is defendant along with Outrider et al

Maybe the underlying rationale for this claim is to achieve judgement against Hope for breach of fiducial duties which will open the door for the SEC to bring further and more punitive punishment, in the form of potential incarceration. Whilst this could be achieved via a jury led prosecution, the SEC has far greater powers and also the funds to bring such a prosecution.

The downside, as some are suggesting is that if this is a similar claim to that currently being heard in the Caymans then it could be cause for concern. Success in the Caymans would imply no need to pursue the matter elsewhere, HOWEVER, these are 2 separate jurisdictions, Caymans in based in UK law and this claim is being heard as a private matter whereas the Californian claim is trial by jury.

Key to all this is the WHY:

Why would FRR commence a new claim in addition to the existing one?

Frontera Resources Corporation et al v. Hope et al filed 14 April 19
Nature of Claim: Personal Property - Other Personal Property Damage
Cause: Diversity-Breach of Fiduciary Duty

COMPLAINT and jury trial demand against Stephen Hope, Outrider Management LLC ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-13258983.). Filed byFrontera Resources Corporation, Frontera International Corporation.(DeClercq, William)

Its irrelevant - the fact these discussions are happening or happened indicates potential progress. Without prejudice communications are usually intended to find common ground to reach agreement without the courts intervention, which in this case would suggest the OOC settlement being worked towards I would guess.

Might take a while but its positive.

Have you actually read the court decision?

It summarises with urging a commercial compromise. Hope does not have a water tight case, the judge was clear that on the merit of probability Frontera had failed to convince him of hope breaching his fiducial duties through a weak test of merit, in other words that is still an option if they can find additional supporting evidence.

Maybe thats what today is about, but your claim is fanciful.

I am still of the opinion today's hearing is likely representation from counsel to deliver agreed terms between all involved parties followed by a future hearing date for costs.

Kelloggs my arse.

The interim injunction is lifted - therefore there is no injunction applied or in force any longer.

Discharged on the grounds that:

a) It was obtained ex-parte on the basis of affidavit evidence which failed to disclose material facts and/or fairly present the merits of the case and

b) the Plaintiff's (FRR) case based on the evidence available at this stage has no real prospects of success and/or fails to raise a serious question to be tried.

Costs to be determined, but looks like will go against FRR. Ideally there should be no order as to costs, meaning each pay their own, but the judge has found more in favour of Hope through Frotera's weaker submission than hopes defence, which explains why he didn't bother submitting any. He knew his position it seems.

The only good or favourable comment in FRR's position is in the postscript where he urges a commercial compromise, in other words, reach an agreement which is likely the out of court settlement, which if and when achieved should see hope removed or resign from the board.

Only then will the company seek to re-list.

this part:

'In English law you can only argue what's stated in your claim form
Anything outside of that needs to be added by agreement, or by court order.'

In other words, no new evidence or claim. Its simply a temporary halt in proceedings. It might be that an agreement ha been reached or that a point of law needs to be examined/explained without prejudice to the parties involved.

It does look likely though to be the parties have reached some form of agreement.

Cayman Law is based on English Law

He can back off whenever he wants, thats what civil law is all about and gives people freedom to act with a certain amount of impunity.

Unlawful means exactly that, irrespective of the judicial system referred to. Unlawful means the act that is in question does not conform with, or recognised by law. This is why the term should not be used here.

Illegal is a different matter and generally prosecuted by the judiciary system where that particular law which has been breached exists. For now, the matter is a civil one, ie, FRR vs Hope and not Cayman Islands Judicial & Legal system (Regina) v Hope.

Irrespective of all this I seriously and genuinely hope FRR wins its claim or that the matter is settled asap and we can return to trading. I've been here long enough and have a lot invested.

By proving that allegation wrong. He has not been charged but accused, there is a difference. Same as there is a difference in law between unlawful and illegal.

However, were I accused of illegal activity and felt that there was the slightest chance I could be found against, as opposed to guilty, then I would likely back off given whats at stake. If it is proven he has performed illegal activities then he stands to be charged by the relevant authorities. And they dont bring such charges lightly.

I'm sure had there been any unlawful interference by hope he would have withdrawn himself from the legal battle. After all, he may be nasty, but not stupid enough to risk everything.

I believe the legal fight is over money, it always is in these instances, but if there is an outside chance hope has acted without the companies best interests at heart whilst a director then that will serve to increase any pressure on him to reach an agreement in Frontera's favour.

We need to ignore this nonsense about unlawful interference unless it becomes evident in the outcome, in which case I really do hope it involves whinging froth and all his mates. Then lets see what happens.

Well, if this ever comes good, lets look at madpunters figures:

"18kMMbbls oil and 202TCF (at the same recoverable rates as the figures in the CPR = 2.9kMMbbls and 140TCF) . If this is converted to oil equivalent (1TCF = 170MMbbls oil) = 2.9 + 26.7 = 29.6kMMbbls. At $60/bbl = $1776bn, therefore just 1% = $17.76bn ( typical buyout valuations are 1 - 3% for producing).
Costs are also relevant, which at less than $12/bbl are a quarter the costs of the BP acquisition in the Permian ($10.5bn for 4.6kMMbbls). FRR has 6.5 x as much hydrocarbons and oil that can be extracted at 4 x as much profit. It's the same Kura Basin and Maykop geology as Azerbaijan, where BP are already involved, but in Georgia it's onshore. IMHO FRR will not sell Block 12, but enter a JV, with a lump sum giving a special dividend and the future percentage of the oil giving excellent dividends for many years or even decades."

At circa 5p the company is worth $1Bn. Given the above at $17.6Bn that gives a shareprice of 88p. Many would say thats unrealistic, but the figures do speak volumes and also make interesting reading.

All thats required is to clear the decks, sort out legals and come out clean. As Regdik commented BP have very high commercial standards and requirements who they do business with, There is no indication they've withdrawn, so this privatisation is probably the best solution. Lets pray its temporary.

"" tailspin into suspension due to debt default" QED."

Where is this proved???

A Term sheet outlines the terms by which an investor will make financial investment in a business. It is a non-binding document, although that has been proven otherwise in recent times via various legal challenges.

Once it's executed, is used to guide the preparation of the final investment agreement.

What it demonstrates is serious intent by the parties involved and certainly not entered into on a whim to deceive shorters.

Kickmucks post below (29 Sept 18)

And on the subject of that box, which quod erat demonstrandum is not empty… A comment on the arbitration issue with the Georgia State agency & the GOGC. Here, my understanding is that the issue is not so much about the contents of the box, which is now well understood by the relevant stakeholders, but about the pace and nature of the manifestation event; the exploitation timescales and how the PSC should be interpreted regarding certain territories in the block, for example, what Frontera refer to as the Basin Edge Play. So, the Miocene horizons at Basin edge (above the gnarly Cretaceous) are now extremely relevant by extrapolation from the staggering technical success at the Miocene Taribani zones. Read the 2005 NSA report on the Sarmatian horizons (S3) at the Basin Edge areas and feed that with the Taribani work into the declaration objectives under Article 9.4(c) of the PSC:
1) There’s not a lot of seismics for Basin Edge
2) We now see a lot of oil in play in the Sarmatian
3) There’s not much time with the Study period.
4) How does that box get opened?

And now understand: There are many juicy boxes in Block 12!

And finally regarding the current pressure on the shareprice of FRR shares (with reverent sunlight on folks buying shares in London who have carried this work to here), as I understand it, certain commitments with regard to vendor stock are being processed, and other pre-agreed sellers are working through their deals – honestly I don’t understand the details. Also, we know that all markets have the derivatives traders like the short selling guys who play their part and spin their story. I have to say; there is a lot of BS in some of the online news websites in the UK and a lot of BS gets posted on Twitter too.
This pressure wont last forever - they’ll take their turns and we’ll get shot of them.
It sounds trite to say a little bit of patience now, but go along next week, hear what Zaza has to say at the meeting in London and try once again to get your heads around 18 billion barrels oil and 202 tcf natural gas.

Q: Is the oil there in the Block 12 license area?
A: NSA have presented cautious oil and gas in-place estimates based on data they have audited from the Frontera drills and data they have generated themselves. We also have some Ryder Scott work. These data estimates are staggering and no one can deny this is not absolutely world class land with several great plays – based on the petroleum consultants data.

Q: Can we drill holes, work the rock and sustain a major field set of commercial flows?
A: Frontera have presented an exploitation & development methodology for a super-multi-well strategy which has excited certain parties to take an interest in Block 12 over recent years, from MND Group / VTB, through to the recently announced majors – these are the ones the market knows about…

OK, I totally agree that retail stockholders are lacking straightforward data to reass

Crikey, i know the tot was finished long before I joined up. Sir George Michael Zambellas, 1st SL joined the year after me. Another pilot went on to bigger things, retired now too.

Are you a Naval man then Dulwich?

Splicing the mainbrace is generally done on special occasions, like royal weddings and births and issued free of charge to serving personnel. If you are merely referring to a lunchtime session that includes rum, then you are a pirate... ;-)

Well, having just arrive in Houston, settled into my room and about to go out for food I see a load of you have taken offence to my post from earlier today.

Well, for starters you need to read and understand what the message actually is. I was not de-ramping the share at all and ONLY one of you actually understood the cynicism of my post, thank you to zeps 10:30 post: "Good to show the symore bottoms " the one on here " Is a imposter. , the other one is Genuine and Brilliant.
Well done mate."

To re-iterate I was simply challenging the symore_bottoms imposter only the morons that reported my post, which was clearly labelled simply gave him and the other scum de-rampers more air time and exposure. Well done.

People need to read and understand what is being said before jumping to conclusions.

Off to see what Vic and Anthony have on offer today. Back in the UK Monday, but I still hold as before.