Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
Excellence in IS Solutions Inc., a Texas based invoicing firm, started a Harris County court action against FRC and NC on 19/01/21 for payment of unpaid bills (thanks to Chris572 for his post of Fri 29/01/21 7.28).
About a year ago, EISI had already applied to FTI for payment of these bills via the liquidation proceedings in NY. It appears, therefore, that EISI have had no redress from the liquidation. Perhaps we can assume from this that FTI have found nothing of worth in FRGC and FIC?
You're quite right - the word I should have used was unquantifiable. Apologies.
I put this post up earlier (or something very similar). But it was deleted. VERY strange.
Yes, Mp - If we get a decent dividend, the original owners of shorted shares will be due a lot of money. They should get it from the brokers to whom they entrusted their shares, and the brokers are very likely to be looking for reimbursement from the shorters (at least, that's what I would think the broker/shorter contracts stipulate, and it looks like that's what the shorters believe as well!). Hence all those 'new' posters suggesting we take FRR to court - anything to try and derail the wagon now that it seems to be rolling. Remember, those potential losses for the shorters are currently 'incalculable'.
N.B. I'm sure that there are a number of genuine holders here who also want a more robust approach to the BOD. I don't agree with them at this time, but do not include them in the shorters' category.
Going from memory, 'Excellence in Is (IS?) Solutions Inc' is a respectable invoicing firm who haven't been paid for their services. Their bill, I seem to recall, is thousands rather than millions, so is in a different category to our 'usual' trials.
A year ago, I think they put in for payment in New York via the attempted liquidation. It would seem the liquidation hasn't produced much cash for creditors!
That Georgian gas is a major multi- national trading matter. I'd be very surprised if the American diplomatic service don't present Biden/his office with a full and detailed report on Ivanishvili and Georgia just as soon as his feet are under the desk in the White House; and that it will be quite near the top of the thousand-and-one matters that need sorting now that Putin's toy has been removed.
For the sake of our investment, I hope so.
This doc., dated 08/01/21, produced jointly by the counsels of both parties, says that OMF and the defendants (SN & ZM) have "diligently worked to advance the proceeding", and that "OMF has served numerous discovery requests on the defendants". The two sides "have also discussed the potential for amicable resolutions. However, circumstances surrounding (SN & ZM's) recent withdrawal of counsel and related federal litigation in California between affiliated parties have culminated in the filing of this motion".
Both parties are now jointly requesting a re-scheduling as follows :-
16/07/21 Plaintiff's Deadline to Designate Experts and Expert Report Due.
13/08/21 Defendants Deadline to Designate Experts and Expert Report Due.
27/08/21 Discovery Deadline.
19/11/21 Deadline to file Dispositive Motions.
04/02/22 Deadline to file Non-Dispositive Motions.
04/03/22 Joint Pretrial Order.
28/03/22 Bench Trial (3 days).
Note that the California case is due to finish on 28/02/22 at latest, so the start of this Texas trial, if it goes ahead, is timed to take the Cali. result into account.
I expect that we will shortly have a further document showing the Judge's granting of the new schedule.
Separately on this document there is also a statement saying that the counsels for both OMF and SN "have been unable to confer with ZM". It goes on to say that Zaza is a resident of Georgia, is not represented by counsel, and the parties do not have current contact information for him.
There is a further statement from OMF's counsel saying that a copy of the request for rescheduling, and the proposed schedule, has been sent by registered mail to ZM at his last known address.
Doc. 86 was a joint submission to the judge yesterday (04/01/21), from both parties, asking for a further extension (actually, a rescheduling) of the trial schedule.
Both parties state that they have been unable, thus far, to reach an amicable settlement. If the case is to go to trial, both parties say they want to seek additional discovery, including depositions. They state that
"circumstances surrounding (FRR's) business operations amid the coronavirus pandemic and (FRR's) recent further substitution of counsel (note - all counsel changes have been covered here by previous docs) have culminated in the filing of this (request for extension), to provide the parties with adequate time to complete their mediation efforts before conducting the necessary additional discovery and related proceedings."
Doc. 87 - Judge Seeborg complies with the request. The new schedule (as requested by the parties) is :-
26/02/21 - Complete mediation.
19/04/21 - Deadline to amend pleadings without seeking leave of Court.
21/05/21 - Completion of non-expert discovery.
18/06/21 - Deadline to serve expert disclosures.
16/07/21 - Deadline to designate rebuttal experts and serve disclosures (this item was not in the old schedule).
27/08/21 - Completion of expert discovery.
07/10/21 - Deadline to file pre-trial motions.
26/01/22 - Final Pretrial Conference.
14/02/22 - Jury Trial.
That explains the near silence on civil.ge since the new year. They're hibernating. Not a bad idea, really.
Perhaps we should try it in this country, too. Oh, hang on - yes, perhaps that explains things.
Great work this evening, bugsy. Thank you.
The GG can refuse the psa extension, and thereby perhaps block the deal. But it's only Ivanishvili the oligarch who is at the centre of the anti-Americanism and anti-FRR activity in Georgia - the GD are just his puppets.
It's the USA that has the overwhelming economic clout in Georgia, however. If they move in heavily on Mr. I's finances, then the blockage should be removed?
When the Arbitration took place, FRR weren't legally represented; they said that, as long as the company still controlled the 1% of the land remaining, it didn't really matter. When the liquidation process started in NY, they weren't represented; as WHamBoy has pointed out, they said the license had been switched to FRUS, so it didn't really matter. Now they haven't got representation in the Caymans; maybe it doesn't really matter?
There's a consistency here, so I'm fervently hoping that it really does fit a plan. They have, after all, got plenty of lawyers - good ones - in California and London, so the company still seems able to move when it believes it has to.
Hmm. IK always comes across as a really nasty, hard-edged brute of a politician. Stalinesque. Whenever the GD says unpleasant things, he seems to be first in line to say them.
If you can be bothered, have a look at max's previous posts. He's been on this board for less than a month, has made 63 posts about a total of 3 companies, and whatever the company, all the posts seem negative - just moans and groans all the way through. Best ignored.
Oh yes! Thanks for the reminder, ODR.
I haven't sent any proof of share ownership to anyone. As others have said, it shouldn't be necessary, and (please correct if this is wrong) I don't think FRR have requested it.
Good luck to those who have sent in, though - it shouldn't do any harm to remind the powers that be of our presence!
Just a dry little note to say that the last day for Expert disclosures, and the last day for Expert Discoveries, passed on 16/11/20 and 30/11/20 respectively. As expected, there are no new entries on the court docket sheet.
The only remaining events on the trial schedule are 'Last day for Pre-Trial Motions' on 14/01/21; then a long gap to the Final Pretrial Conference on 14/04/21. The actual jury trial is still scheduled for 26/04/21, to take up to 3 weeks.
Oh - and I don't think I've ever got anyone banned from anywhere.
Hmm - seem to have touched a nerve or two. Pity I can't remember him properly (although, judging from the tone, that may be a blessing!). As for the 'collective ', perhaps he's referring to me and my cat.
Just for those who might have missed the original coverage - that's dated 14/1020 - a report on his begging letter to the GG. They've already told effectively told him to push off.
During the last week, there have been 3 more docs. in the Cali case. Nothing startling. They are all just brief notifications about further changes in FRR's line-up of attorneys.
Doc. 83 sees the departure of Guy Kornblum (a pity, I liked him). It also introduces Mark D. Erickson of Haynes and Boone (for the second time - he was also announced in doc. 81!).
Doc. 84 is the judge's usual consent to doc.83's changes.
Doc.85 brings in David Brandon Clark, also from Haynes and Boone.
FRR currently have 6 attorneys listed as active in this case - 2 from H & B, 2 from Taylor English Duma (including the Lead Attorney), 1 from Kornblum's company, and 1 from Schouest, Bamdas, Soshea & BenMaier.