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.
I don't know who first wrote this, but it's still good -
'Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon...
....No matter how good you are, the bird is just going to s**t on the board and strut around like it won anyway.'
Good night. It's been a nice day.
RJD6 - Your answer, I think, was provided by the wonderful Looed on 14/04/23 at 02:04.
Note to my last --
The 'Endangered Media Outlet' banner was adopted by the 'Civil Georgia' organisation because, as a receiver of UN funds, it would have been one of the many institutions to be closed down if the Draft Law had been adopted.
The 'Draft Law on Foreign Agents' is an attempt at a straight lift of Putin's method of dictatorial control into the Georgian constitution. It would mean that Georgia's media and social institutions would all become effective subjects of the pro-Russian government's publicity department.
The retreat of the government on the Draft Law is a massive relief for any (non-Russian) foreign investor into Georgia, and has come about because of enormous diplomatic and economic pressure from the U.S. State Dept. and government, the EC leadership and institutions and, of course, Georgia's own population.
Georgia's president, Salome Zurabishvili, has been noticeable among those who have stood out against the law She explains why in her latest interview -
https://civil.ge/archives/530254
Mr. Hope is not a shareholder in Frontera. He bought loan notes cheaply from a distressed creditor of Frontera, and I understand that it was in that capacity (a creditor) that he got himself onto the FRR board (N.B. This is definitely NOT a good reason to be a director - quite the contrary - and is frowned upon by the bodies that advise on such matters). He appears to have been there only for the benefit of his own personal company, Outrider.
Expecting Mr. H. to be a white knight for shareholders sounds delusional to me - I suspect that if he had control of the company he would find ways to delete shareholders' value to nothing (always a danger, anyway!). Outrider are a firm of asset strippers - vultures. Vultures can be seen as useful creatures in nature - they can be seen to serve a purpose - but I don't want to share a dining table with them!
I'm sure that the comments referring to Frontera International not appearing refer to ZM.
There have been 2 documents since Doc. 115 of 31/01/23.
Here's a copy of doc 116 of 31/01/23 ---
The Court has been informed that a settlement has been reached between Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation and Defendants. Plaintiff Frontera International Corporation has not appeared in this matter since the motion of its counsel to withdraw was granted on August 16, 2021. Dkt. 31. Accordingly, the Court vacates all pretrial and trial dates. Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation and Defendants are required to file a stipulation of dismissal by April 10, 2023. If a stipulation of dismissal is not filed by that date, Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation and Defendants are ordered to appear on April 13, 2023 at 1:30PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse and show cause why the claims of Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation should not be dismissed. Failure to comply
with this Order may result in dismissal of these claims. Plaintiff Frontera International Corporation is ordered to file papers no later than March 9, 2023 showing cause why its claims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In the event Plaintiff Frontera International Corporation does not respond to this order, it claims will be dismissed without further notice. Pursuant to the representation of Plaintiff Frontera International Corporation’s former counsel that papers may be served on it for forwarding to Plaintiff Frontera International Corporation as provided in Local Rule 11-5(b), Dkt. 91 at 7, the clerk shall serve this order on Haynes and Boone for such purpose. IT IS SO ORDERED.
And here is Doc. 117 of 10/02/23 :--
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the parties in this action (other than Plaintiff Frontera International Corporation, which has not appeared or participated in this case since August 16, 2021 [D.E. 93]), have reached a settlement in principle resolving all claims. Such parties will file a Stipulation for Dismissal upon execution of their settlement agreement. DATED: January 31, 2023.
That's it. Very annoyingly, there are no details at all on what the settlement consists of !!!!!
It seems odd, but nowhere in the docket (116) are SH/O's attorneys actually named or listed. The only time they're even mentioned is at the start of the submission where it says 'To Stephen Hope, Outrider (etc. - my abbreviation!) and their counsel of record'.
I may be making too much of it, but I wonder if SH's suspected shortage of cash - or possibly the weakness of his case - means that his attorneys have effectively left him to it? We can but - um Hope!
In Bahrain. Hate to sound like a stuck record (but then, why not? Seems quite fashionable around here!). Bahrain also has a big shipyard, and it, too, contains dry docks - and they're more than large enough for the Leandra. Wouldn't that be nice.
Haggis - Thanks for taking the time to reply.
I don't know what I'm talking about, and suspect that this is clutching at straws, but there is a shipyard in Dammam. It has a lifting capacity of 22,000 tons D.W.T. This, I suspect is too small for us, or unsuitable in some other way?
"you are inferior, a lost sole".
A bit fishy, too! (Sorry - couldn't resist it).
This doc. starts with a thorough re-iteration of the multiple previous extensions to the trial schedule, and I now know that I made a mistake in my reporting of these. A month ago (doc 107), a part of the schedule was extended by 6 weeks - I then wrongly assumed and reported that this extension, as previous extensions, would probably be shuffled all the way through the schedule to the trial - but it wasn't. The date of the actual jury trial therefore remained, and still remains, at 01/05/23. My apologies for the mistake.
Back to doc. 111. It is submitted by FRC's attorneys in reply to SH/OMF's 'Motion for Summary Judgement'. FRC is requesting that the schedule of 'Deadlines for the Plaintiff (that's FRC) to respond to Defendant's (that's SM/OMF) Motion for Summary Judgement' be extended by 60 days (from 25/11/22 to 24/01/23). SH/OMF have agreed to a 45 day extension for this purpose, and it is now up to the judge to decide which length of extension, 60 or 45 days, should be accepted. What fun! Who'd be a lawyer?
This is just another change within the schedule dates, but the date of the jury trial itself still remains at 01/05/23.
Why fight over whether the case ends in a Summary Judgement or a Jury Trial? By now, both sides will be aware of their opponents arguments - of their strengths and weaknesses. They will also know, I think, of their opponent's witnesses, and what evidence they will present. For example, FRC will probably call London witnesses (we know that there are overseas witnesses) to point out any behaviour of SH/OMF which caused FRC to leave AIM; FRC will also hopefully present evidence of SH/OMF's foiled attempts to underhandedly take over FIC and it's rights in Georgia.
Attempting to win over a jury of 12 people seeking justice (and where a simple majority is required), is vastly different to winning over a judge on the cold issues of legal and commercial precedence. That difference is certainly worth fighting for.
Just had a look at the actual document (109). The attorneys really are ONLY asking for a deadline extension of 'complete expert discovery' to 27/01/23. No request to extend the deadline of the trial itself, and from the wording of the document, it looks as though they don't intend to interfere with the actual trial date (I may be wrong - but all through the doc., the attorneys seemed to be at pains to be clear about what dates had been amended by previous requests).
On doc. 110, the judge granted the singular extension of the 'Complete Expert Discovery' Extension. One minor curiosity - the judge also had the year wrong! (I hope!).
erazzel - The two cases I've been watching are the big one in California with a jury (Frontera vs Hope/Outrider), where the climax is the actual court case (up to 3 weeks long) scheduled to begin on 12/06/23. The other case is in Texas (Outrider vs SN & ZM) where the actual 3 day bench trial is scheduled to begin on 11/07/23.
If Frontera win the Cali case, the Texas one will probably be cancelled.
You've written a good summary, Looed. Far better than I could manage. The total document is huge - over 900 pages - I believe the links in your 13.19 post are part of it. In total, the document includes H/OMF's description of how they acquired Frontera's loan notes, how Hope then became a director, and goes on to include, I think, all the documentation from all the various legal battles that have since ensued between the parties in the Cayman Islands, London and the USA. No kidding. I don't know where to start looking. Perhaps Mr H. is trying to bamboozle the judge with the sheer weight of evidence? Wouldn't be surprised. If I remember correctly, he tried something similar when FRC tried to get a restraining order on him 2 or 3 years ago. H/OMF put in a massive document (hundreds of pages). I don't know if that doc was instrumental in the decision, but the restraining order was refused. He's still got the same lawyer.
One implication in your posts that I feel compelled to quibble though, Loo - I have absolutely no real expertise whatsoever in the law or court procedure. Wish I had.
Nothing exciting - just an addition to the personnel. At least it shows that our side is still ticking. To clarify - this case is Outrider v SN (in a personal capacity), - OMF are after a lot of SN's FRC shares.
SN has now hired 2 new attorneys from Greenspan Marder (GM) - Daniel F Nagiotta and Mark Thomas Doerr - both now listed as 'co-counsels' of GM's 'Lead Attorney', Sharon Urias.
SN now has a total of 4 active attorneys on this case - the above 3 from GM, and 'Lead Attorney' Phillip Potts from Haynes & Boon.
This morning's posts have made me look at the last Cali docket listings, and they're confusing.
The last full list of schedule dates for this case was in doc. 104, where the actual trial date was given as 01/05/23.
Doc. 106 was simply to move an item in the schedule (the 'Deadline to Designate Rebuttal Experts') along by 6 weeks, from 28/10/22 to 09/12/22. No mention was made of the rest of the schedule dates - including the eventual trial - though it seems clear that they, too, should have been moved along by 6 weeks (as happened when there was a change in the schedule for OMF v SN/ZM case in Texas recently - there is an obvious pattern here).
For the record, then, it is almost certain that the date for the Cali trial has been changed, without any docket notification (the omission is probably a simple admin error), from 01/05/23 to 12/06/23.
Thanks Looed. The judge doesn't mention any actual trial date per se in this document (107), he just grants the request as listed in doc. 106.
Just to note, although the motion may have been proposed to the judge by Hope/OMF, it was all agreed by both sides before submission.
Thanks, Looed. Sorry I didn't read your previous post properly - you deserve better attention. The rescheduling was indeed entirely mutual.