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.
To clarify.....in the 2nd paragraph in my posting below.....I’m not intending to say Plaintiffs can’t revisit the 2016 matters in the current Court action but rather, I wonder if the Defendants will include such an assertion in any response!
Interesting read as it fleshes out the detail and history behind the 2016 legal conflict that eventually gave rise to the mediation agreement (and the appointment of an ‘independent’ Board member)!
While the information and Plaintiffs attempt to relate it to current Defendants behaviour (through a history and pattern of behaviour that alludes to OMF/Hope’s nefarious efforts to take over Frontera one way or another), I’m sure their lawyers will, inter alia, dismiss the declaration as unrelated matters to the current issues before the court......as, while Plaintiffs version of events will no doubt be disputed, it was an adversary complaint filing that was ultimately resolved through the mediation and therefore can’t now be revisited or hold any bearing on the current ‘facts/issues’ before the US Court now.
Irrespective of the above......the big takeaway for me was the inclusion of SH as one of the recipients of the email erroneously including “FRC's financial advisors at Rothschild & Co., that MND's board of directors had approved a resolution to acquire FRC itself with the support of VTB Bank, a Russia-based banking group” and therefore “MND had no intention of entering into a farm-in agreement”. This surely goes to illustrate a long term subversive pattern of behaviour by OMF/SH to ultimately sell/takeover FRC for a higher gain over and above the mere recovery of the loan notes. Additionally, where I had previously assumed SH appointing himself as FRC Board director was a matter specifically agreed in the mediation agreement, the revelation that the agreement wording stated the appointment of an ‘independent’ Director surely supports Plaintiff’s assertions.....as he can in no way be classed as independent!
It will be interesting to see how the US Court views this, as well as Defendants response/explanations!
Great post Reggio!
I would add also, unless you are a mega rich nutter whose personal wealth affords you a position to not care about the legal costs and just hope to win by intimidation and a larger purse than the other side (such as a Trump type individual) then ordinarily, lawfirms will look carefully at the likelihood of success and advise the client where they stand. There has to be a substantiated and substantially provable legal basis for undertaking an action. Further, I don’t think lawfirms would advise you to undertake any such action even on even a 50/50 basis. They generally satisfy themselves that, on the facts presented, it’s more like an 80/20 position in your favour. The caveat here of course, is ‘on the facts presented‘! It’s incumbent on the litigant to ensure there’s full disclosure to their legal team so they’re in possession of all of the facts and not just presented with a limited presentation of evidence so as to make it appear a one-sided case! Not suggesting FRR have done that, but rather, I’m suggesting that if they have been fully forthcoming with their legal team, warts and all, and the lawyers still see a strong case then that is most encouraging!
Great news cannyscot2! Unfortunately, that’s the message I get on something called Onedrive!!??
Me to......link doesn’t work for me.
Is it not possible to post a pdf? Or could the FSHG email it to all? I sent them my details but heard nothing from them to date?
Amen to that Sycric! Belies logic! Notwithstanding Christmas and New Year effect on timescales!!
Agree with a lot of what you say CF! But would still, nonetheless, like to know the full reason/rationale for the sudden resignation....factual or otherwise! As I said, can’t believe the communication to FRR would not have stated it be it a conflict or a certain rule or T&C breach et cetera! Though, appreciate knowing wouldn’t change where we are today! I remain still very hopeful and confident that we won’t delist and therefore a NomAd will be appointed imminently!
Apologies if I’ve missed this already but does anyone know the reason for the NomAd’s sudden resignation? The only news I’ve seen is that it was unexpected surprise to FRR! I find it difficult that the NomAd’s communication to FRR didn’t give a reason? It would be a bizarre communication that didn’t include an explanation of a believed breach or conflict et al! So have FRR/YJ withheld the reason? And would such a reason be an issue to a new NomAd? Or, have u simply missed the message that explained it!!?
I’m still very hopeful that my shareholding won’t be lost and some good news will materialise next week but do feel we’re very much in the dark on what’s happened and why!
That's great news AB......can you explain why those particular figures (500m volume and 0,60s)? I'd be happy chappy if so! Big believer in DYOR but it'd be great if you could point me the source material for them!
1.46 for me!