Member Info for CF73

Some of us have come to the biew he hadn't been either shorting or naked shorting (he wouldn't need to be naked shorting here for to be a biggie: plain shorting a company in which you were a director would be enough to demonstrate breach of fiduciary duties)

With Hope clearly a malignant force, there were serious dangers giving him those 500million shares.

PJOHN, this is the crus: right now, to us, it seems that we are not in control. If that is the reality, and naturally, FRR will know, then sort loan and pay Hope off. Only pursue any other route if the evidence supports it and only if that evidence is irrefutable.

From where we are, it seems we are not in control and so paying Hope appears to be the only reasonable path.

In agreement Gipps, now that he cannot veto us getting a loan, sort one and pay him off. No point doing anything else at this stage unless they have evidence that is unequivocal and not open to interpetation.

...get Hope off the board and then come out with well production and evidence of viable company and a plan and demonstrable means to pay off debt?

...at the end of the day, should be about paying them off and getting rid...

ODR, I've been looking for this and had not had any luck. Though I seem to remember there was talk on these BBs about his suspension (could just be imagining it)

pophead, thanks. Trying to get my head around all of it:

If he was suspended, then means the decision to move asset was reached unanimously.

But we now have the quetsion as to whether or not it was legal under the loan note terms and conditions to do so.

We are also arguing we can pay back within 12months. Maybe a delaying tactic or may be worth a try as we could be doing some pretty decent production right now. But will need evidencing and showing to the courts --- which becomes possible now that Hope is no longer on the board and able to interfer with inside knowledge...

Not expecting any comms from the company whatsoever, whether to FSG or anyone else, not unitl they are ready.

Arsenal, I do seem to remember that there was talk on this BB of Hope and suspension some while back. But cannot recall whether it based upon soem news or information of his suspension or whether it was hypothetical, or if indeed I'm imagining things.

Certainly, the company would've been in their rights suspending him back then, when news was breaking of the Cayman's case. Why they didn't doesn't make sense; unless they hoped he would be constrained by his being a director and still having to live up to his fiduciary duties, but this time in full view of the courts and in fact the world, or may be it was the plan then to gather evidence of further ongoing breaches of fiduciary duties.

If Hope is now moving to liquidate, we needed the TRO. But California tells us that it's not in their jurisdiction to grant the TRO (being a Cayman's asset)?

If that is the case, it wasn't that we couldn't present a strong enough case?

But FRR could see this possibly happening and moved rhe asset?

One thing is for sure, we can see why we're getting no comms. I'm now expecrting no comms until they REALLY are ready to tell us something.

I would've thought Hope would be suspended by FRR at the same time FRR were claiming his breach of his fiduciary duties. Cannot make such a claims of breaches and still leave it possible and open for him to attend board meetings etc.

*because

Doesn't make sense to me that he resigned became he thought he might get suspended.

There's been good discussion here around his resignation with general consensus being that he resigned so he could move to liquidate the company, otherwise he was in breach of his fiduciary duties

If Hope had been suspended from the board asa result of the investigation into his activities and breaches, any subsequent vote taking place without him could be unanimous as long as everyone else was there.

Thanks for your thoughts regdik.

...if we have to go back to Cayman, we get Kawaley and we return to someone who was erring on our side by the end...

Costing Hope a hell of a lot of money too.

Very helpful as always Oopsi!

Where are folks getting this idea of the judges having a negative view?

We know that initial Kawaley judgement went against us but by the end he was firmly on our side. And our move out of Caymans, it seems, was because we couldn't get a lot for a hearing in time (there may be other factors, pressures and interests).

Most of us wanted the TRO because it would have de facto prevented Hope moving on our assets. But it is possible and wholly credible that once into the California court case process, a TRO was not required as the court will then decide what happens. But I haven't had a chance to see the latest docs. Can someone enlighten me as to what it contains?

...if they could be saved to Dropbox? Madp?

Thanks in advance!