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.
Ahh yes - those rescheduling dates should be 2023. Sorry.
This case, too, has shown a sign of continuing life. And again, it is seeking to extend the deadlines on joint behalf of both sides. They say they 'need additional time to coordinate schedules'.
All remaining deadlines have been moved on by 6 weeks. The most relevant dates from our viewpoint seem to be
Joint Pretrial Order 16/06/22
Final Pretrial Conference 25/07/22
Bench Trial (3 days) 11/07/22.
I expect there will probably be a doc. 59 from the judge to OK the rescheduling.
There is the usual suffix for this case that ZM's whereabouts are unknown, but details have been sent to his last known address in Georgia.
California - Document 104.
OK everybody, you can go back to sleep. It just seems to be a procedural technicality.
The attorneys for both sides have got together and are jointly requesting for some scheduled court deadlines to be moved (extended by 45 days) for completion of depositions and expert discoveries. No explanation for the delays, as far as I can see. The dates for pre-trial motions, pre-trial conference and the jury trial itself (01/05/23) are not affecteds, so it shouldn't mean much to us.
I suppose that the Judge's approval of the requested changes will be forthcoming shortly.
To state the obvious, if Bidzina Ivanishvili and the Georgian Dream were to succeed in their pro-Russian ambitions, FRR could kiss goodbye to the company's aspirations in Georgia.
Fortunately, the EU, US and Nato are clearly aware of the political situation, and are making their attitude towards Georgia increasingly obvious. As an illustration of this, today the US ambassador to Georgia stated that the US were "ready and willing to help Georgia move through reforms to secure EC candidate status. The next 6 months will be an important opportunity to get started."* She added "there is no time to waste, and there are many other stakeholders: the people, civil society, opposition parties, and some members of the government as well, who are standing ready to get started on these recommendations".
*(Elsewhere in her statement, she specified that the EU roposals should be "accomplished , hopefully by the end of the year." - hmmph, that's better lady!).
Incidentally, the three GD MPs who left the party yesterday, are pro-Russian extremists, and left the government because they believe the EU proposals are designed to try and provoke a revolution (against Georgia's pro-Russian leaders).
I'm hoping they're right!
In Tbilisi, on 20/06/22, despite the opposition of the government, there was a huge number, and I mean 50,000 to 120,000 people, demonstrating enthusiastically under the slogan 'Going Home to Europe'. And there were smaller demos in other cities, too. For a small country like Georgia, that's a very, very big demo, and it appears to have shaken things up.
Tonight, the governing Georgian Dream Party have felt themselves forced to state that many of their members, too, had taken part in the demo, and that 85% of the population 'supported the European idea". At the demo, the organisers and speakers fervently agreed with the EU's demands that the country should make various changes to it's governmental organisation. These included 'de-oligarchisation' (i.e. freeing itself from the power of the oligarchs - most notably Bidzina Ivanishvili, the GD's string-puller). Can the GD do that? They certainly haven't mentioned it thus far - nor any of the EU's other demands. And there's the rub. We will see. But they (the GD) are seriously rattled.
In my last post (25/05/22), I reported that EU MEPs were drawing attention to the Georgian government's slide into authoritarianism, and that there were also rumblings that the country's recent anti-liberal, anti-democratic, oppressive behaviour would prevent Georgia's application to join the EU from succeeding.
The Heads of States and Governments of the EU will convene a meeting on 23-24/06/22 to decide on the membership applications of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine 'as the start to a merit-based process'. Yesterday, the leaders of the seven Political Groups of the EU's MEPs jointly issued a statement to the convening heads pleading for them to grant candidate status to Moldova and Ukrain, but only appealed that they "work towards granting the same status to Georgia, fulfilling the aspirations of the Georgian people" - in other words, they consider that Georgia is curently unfit for EU candidacy - as in 'more work required'.
Also yesterday, the European Parliament itself adopted a resolution which "called on the Georgian authorities to resolutely uphold the highest standards of democracy, judicial independence, fair trials, and fundamental freedoms". It also "called for sanctions against Bidzina Ivanishvili, ex-PM and Georgian Dream founder". (Good. Better late than never).
The reason for the EU's disapproval is that the GD government's statements and policies, since their reelection, seem to be continually at odds with it's previously arranged formal agreements with the EU's negotiators. Instead of aiming at producing a liberal democracy, they seem determined to go in the opposite direction. Almost alone in Georgia, the GD's attitude to Russia is one of meek compliance. There can be little doubt that it is obeying it's founder, owner and master, Mr. Ivanishvili, at the expense of Georgia's populace. Unfortunately, this would also be at the expense of the country's foreign investors (us). My personal suspicion is that they have chosen this course in order to deliberately cause the EU to refuse membership - which would suit Mr. I and his Russian connections and finances (but then, wtfdik).
In Georgia today, the parliamentary opposition stated it's dismay at the proposed refusal of membership and at the government's policies which have caused it. Georgia's president has also spoken similarly. We can expect further loud complaints from NGOs, foreign ambassadors and representatives and (let's hope most of all), the Georgian public in general.
I think there are going to be ructions.
The policies and actions of the Georgian Dream government have been troubling me for a long time. Various international organisations (for press freedom, human rights, etc.) have drawn attention to Georgia's slide into authoritarianism. Of late, EU representatives have stated that the government's anti-liberal judicial and social policies are contrary to the EU's rules for membership, and that this disapproval may prevent the country's current membership application from being accepted.
This is bad news for any Western company, like FRR, wishing to invest in the country. The party is effectively owned (indeed it was founded) by a multi-billionaire oligarch, Bidzina Ivanishvili, with a strong Russian based financial need to counter any move towards the West. As parts of the country are already occupied by Russia, caution by the government is to be expected, but the lack of criticism of Russian aggression, and the mealy-mouthed nature of it's 'support' for Ukraine leaves liittle doubt as to where it's owner's sympathies lay.
According to the polls in Georgia, the populace is strongly pro-Western, pro-EC, pro-Ukrainian and anti-Russian. Corruption as usual, however, doesn't take any notice of democratic preferences. All is certainly not lost, and the Western powers have definitely woken up to the danger in Georgia, but it's a concern of which we should be aware.
I've been away for the last week, and only caught up with the BB today. With regard to the recent docket entries in NY, I think I got through to the appropriate NY court website, but when I typed in Case No. 1:19-bk-13418, I got the reply 'Cannot find case 1:19-bk-13418'.
Am I doing something wrong, or could the FTI case have now been withdrawn? (Said he, more in hope than expectation!).
I believe FRR managed to transfer the asset (the PSC) into it's FRUS subsidiary before Hope/OMF could get their claws on it. However, according to the Texas court after much examination, that legal transfer to FRUS 'was not reflected in the Public Registry of the Government of Georgia'. The Texas Court therefore accepted that FRR/FRUS owned the PSC. Subsequently, according to the Texas court, any other claim on the PSC (such as that by ZZ/Green Capital) was based on an 'administrative error' by the Georgian Government - who now seem to have accepted the Texan interpretation. Hence, attempts at takeover by ZZ/Green Capital were incorrect, and possibly illegal.
I would say that this reflects very badly on FTI, who mistakenly went in against FRR with both feet, and got it all wrong. I think FTI have probably limped off the field now to lick their wounds. Serves them right.
If you want to read the Texan court's decision, it was posted on here by Proper123 (thank you so much, Proper123) at about 18.59 on 14/06/21 - the bit quoted above is from Part 2.
That's it. This is old history, and I'd prefer not to go back there again.
Yes, ODR. I believe you're right.
I suppose that's the way you do it in Wales, bach.
With FRR's court cases looking reasonably hopeful, one thing still troubles me, and it's the political situation in Georgia itself. The government - or at least it's leaders - comes across as very much opposed to criticism of anything Russian - e.g. Russian critics of Putin are stopped from entering Georgia at crossing points and airports with no good reason given, and governmental criticism of the Ukraine invasion is practically non-existent. Very odd considering recent events and Georgia's history. It has to be said that the president has publicly distanced herself from her government on this matter, and the polls show that the government is completely out of step with the populace. (As keysersoze has just pointed out, the government is now threatening to take the country's president to the appeals court over this matter! Good grief!). But still, it's concerning, after all, it's the government that's in charge. As most here will know, the ruling party, Georgian Dream, was originally created by the pro-Russian oligarch, Bidzina Ivanishvili. He is the richest man in Georgia by a very, very long way, and his sticky fingers are everywhere, especially on the government. According to Forbe's rich-list, BI has a current net worth (prior to the Ukrainian invasion) of c.$5.2 billion. As with most Russian oligarchs, his riches originated in the post-USSR economic confusion when Russian governmental favourites were effectively given control of industries for a song. His numerous businesses are still based to a large degree in Russia. So, as FRR shareholders looking for a successful outcome in Georgia, I would say that an interest in BI's activities, by us, is entirely justified.
I've been trying to find whether BI is on the list of sanctioned oligarchs. Although his sanctioning has been publicly discussed in American governmental circles and elsewhere in previous years, I can find no mention of it in recent bulletins.
Does anyone know whether Georgia's most significant puller-of-strings is now sanctioned?
Don't get me wrong. I'm not losing much sleep over BI. The Americans, and all the ambassadorial spooks in Georgia, will know everything they need to know, and they should have enough economic clout to stop any over-fondness with Russia. I'd just feel a bit easier if I knew BI was blacklisted.
You're sharp, Looed. Just checked the detail on that addendum. There are two notifications to ZM - one is a 'certificate of service', the other a 'certificate of notice'. I suppose that covers all bases.
Thanks for the heads-up on the new doc., Looed.
The doc. itself states that the motion is filed by both sides, and then runs through the history of this case's past schedule amendments, pointing out that this (shares) case is reliant on the results of the fiduciary case in California. It further says that the last schedule amendment in this case was to 'explore possible settlement of this action'; that (both) parties have engaged in discovery, and that SN's side has 'also served discovery requests on non-parties' ( I think this lattermost part must relate to the fiduciary case?).
It then points out that the fiduciary case has been extended to allow for SN's latest attorney changes, and that both sides wanted more time to co-ordinate their discovery efforts. The requested new schedule ends with the 3 day bench trial (for the shares case) being moved from 13/12/22 to 23/05/23.
An addendum to the motion says that ZM remains incommunicado, and that necessary court papers have (as the law decrees) been sent to his last known address in Georgia.
If the OMF case is the fiduciary one, then the latest rescheduling has it finally coming to court on 01/05/23 (UK format).
A good point to consider, Seingred. 'Financiers' (usually share holders I would think) probably do sometimes take a seat on a company board. If they do, however, they should take care to keep any separate monetary interests away from their directorial duties - i.e. by withdrawing from debates on relevant financial matters - otherwise they risk breaking fiduciary rules. For obvious reasons, the solicitors websites that I have read on the subject advise against trying to ride two horses in this way. I don't think, anyway, that SH had the slightest intention of properly fulfilling his directorial duties.
I have to point out, too, that SH is neither a shareholder nor a careful financier seeking a profitable future for his investment in the company - he is merely an asset stripper. This was proved by his blatant takeover attempt as soon as the courts backs were turned. That takeover attempt will surely be a major piece of evidence to be considered in the new trial.
ODR - A primary cause of my optimism is centred on the fiduciary base of FRR's claim. Mr. Hope was an FRR director and, by law, directors have a duty, a fiduciary duty, to look after the company they're directing; that even means putting the company's interests before their own. Of course, Mr.Hope should not have put himself into a position where he had such a massive conflict of interests, but he did. And he didn't have to step very far before his actions became unlawful. The question is, did he perform his actions for FRR's good, or was it primarily (or entirely) for his and OMF's benefit? As he didn't waste any time before effecting a takeover of FRR's assets, I think any reasonable person would decide that he breached his fiduciary duty.
Of course, pointing out the obvious is different from proving it in court, and I certainly don't pretend that it's a slam dunk. FRR's lawyers, however, seem confidant, and in California they they only have to persuade a simple majority of the jury that their case is correct. OMF, as predatory asset strippers, are unlikely to be viewed with much sympathy by the jury. So I would say that FRR have the upper hand in court, though we can be sure that SH/OMF will put up a hard struggle, and nothing is certain.
It doesn't bother me if if there is an out of court settlement, as long as FRR's, and our, interests are well served.
You say 'the outcome (of a court case) will not be in the foreseeable future'. That applies only if there are grounds for appeal, and I suspect that SH/OMF won't have any.
You're right to point out the negative case in this matter, ODR. We all need to be aware of the counter arguments, and you serve us well by bringing them to our attention. And I, too, am cheesed off by the lack of communication; but I remain broadly optimistic. To be honest, I can't see much point in being anything else.
Pyro - 2 points to add to your excellent post -
1) where is the lawyers' money coming from?
If I remember correctly, FRR are claiming $65m from H/OMF in the fiduciary case and, providing FRR win, SH/OMF will also be lumbered with FRR's costs in that trial.
2) Why are the majors not jumping in with an offer?
At the moment, who do they make an offer to? The ownership of the asset is disputed by SH/OMF and, technically, ZM (though he appears to be practically out of the running now). As long as there is any doubt at all on this matter, I suggest that no company is going to get involved in serious negotiations.
That's why I keep harping on about the fiduciary case - victory here is absolutely essential. Judging from the legal manoeuvring, FRR are displaying confidence that they will, indeed, win. Just wish they would get it into the b____y courtroom!
Thanks yet again, Looed.
Sorry for the delay, Looed - just got to the computer. The new docs (102 & 103) state that this is the seventh time the trial date has been 'extended' (moved back). The latest 180 day extension is due, they say, to the impact of coronavirus, and to FRR's substitution and introduction of new counsel. It appears to me that the delay is primarily at FRR's behest, although H/OMF's team also seem supportive of it. Both parties say they wish to 'continue their discovery' activities, and to coordinate these with the timings of two connected cases in Texas (one in Houston - case no. 4.19-cv-02714 - the shares case; and the other in Harris County - 'cause' (sic, should this be 'case') no. 202152559 - is this ZM's?).
Also in Texas, just for info, a new document (no. 55) says that one of the Haynes and Boone lawyers has been substituted (by Ms Urias, whose appointment was reported a day or two ago).