Member Info for Goit

Don't forget the 'realistic prospects of success'

It could of been a tactical decision by the lawyers to put our strongest foot forward second as Hope's defense did not have an opportunity to refute or defend against the accusations and statements held within it. Leaving Hope in bad light and the worst and strongest of the accusations fresh in the judge's mind going into the hearing on the 6th

Yeah.... 'business judgement' for whom?

Love to know the rationale he put forward.' Mr. Hope blocked a potential $60 million financing arrangement with Durham Capital because he believed the arrangement might be detrimental to OML. (See Third Nicandros Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. “A” (Transcript of November 27, 2018 FRC Board Meeting))'

Does anyone have access or is able to post the transcript? Although I suspect it may just be another 'ranks above outrider' which only makes sense, if the debt facility wasn't purely to get rid of them. Unless it was the 150k...

If he was concerned about safeguarding outrider interests then why did he block the Durham loan even though part of it was openly stated and intended to retire (presumably atleast some of, if not all outrider) debt.
As far as I can tell, he is not absolved from his fiduciary duties to FRR just because he was appointed by Outrider to the board, which is the premise of the court case

Also thanks taffy!

This is definitely the best and strongest submission so far across caymans and previous Cali ones. Feeling pretty confident about the 6th now - not long to go. The not being able to find 150k for the loan is moderately worrying but you have to remember that Hope was kept at arms length from operations so I'm guessing didn't have a full picture of what was going on at the time.

It was in one of the tro documents. Hope's side referenced it and said something along the lines of 'highly questionable unanimous decision to move the asset' highly questionable I'm guessing because he was suspended from the board, they made another comment about it too but I can't remember, maybe referencing against terms of notes or something.
I believe I read it In one of taffy52's posting sessions if you click through his profile posting history to find a less vague summary.

If FRR reply to Hopes defense in Cali, then it might very well include details on whether or not a statement of solvency was issued.

What date was the latest generic reply sent?

If we are truely insolvent then YellowJersey will be very shortly KIA. Are they still knocking about for FRR?

You need that money back? I thought you were gifted 2million shares because they were worthless.... Freudian slip!
Also, as for talking about liars in the next post - the irony.

Nothing like a near death experience to put things in perspective. Whatever happens here, we will be alive to make another potential bad/good investment. Statement of solvency tomorrow/weds? Would such a declaration be submitted to the court documents?
Reading about a members voluntary liquidation and statement of solvency 'The sworn declaration of solvency must also be accompanied by a document known as a statement of assets and liabilities which sets out the company’s financial position.'
Obviously taking on some rainbow rider optimism but could it have been possible that frr had reached a solvent nature (golden age) before these court dates kicked off, I would like to think there was that level of redundancy and the board was that concientious before committing to such a fiasco. Kawaley was pretty scathing about the way the company had been run, will he have been privy to up to date production and operations information and data? if so, that pooh-poohs that idea. During all this radio silence have we had a cpr on the assets? Would a stonking cpr be enough to sign a declaration of solvency?
Good luck comes in 3s, good MEP results (imo), statement of solvency, 150mil loan. Easy heh....

Forgive my naivety in suing but on the chance that FRR returns to market and you are at substantial profit, how does suing them for over-investment work still, as it has been to your advantage? Unless the suing is purely related to the non-disclosure and not financial loss related?

As someone mentioned on here I think the original Plan B was the durham loan, which, i'm guessing got thwarted by the unexpected delisting of the shares. Win or lose we would of had the money to pay Hope off and maybe some bonus money from the fiduciary case. Since delisting, it looks like we've been riding the wave and I'm guessing trying to buy time to get another loan (or a better option). Showing that FRR can get 150mil loan solves the solvency issue immediately but it may be on very unfavorable terms but lets face it, most would rather lose a leg than be on the chopping block. Let's hope the production numbers and scaling that can be achieved in the 12 months can easily service the debt already. The extra time bought by all the legal fiasco has definitely allowed work on the ground to progress still - if nothing else, strengthening FRR's position.

I seem to remember one of the emails posted on here that came before the others regarding the loans, where Hope is asking about the fire-sale price of the assets. Whether or not it was chronologically before the veto'd loan talk I cannot remember. I would say that is a pretty strong piece of evidence of his lack of fiduciary concerns for the company, specially if that is his first solution to FRR's financial problems...

Both sides seem to be claiming they were triumphant in the Caymans, it would be interesting to actually know the real story there.

Didn't they get an extension also?

hopefully be news on it today?

Bloody hell never thought I would recommend a map post. Chin up

Sorry if this has been clarified previously but I was under the impression that FRR had already concluded one in December-ish during caymans. I would hope in light of the revelations here this is precisely what they would have been looking for relating to 'Hope' s web'
I am also assuming any evidence uncovered would be useable in the Cali case or do they need to apply for a separate one again, which to me is slightly bizzare but the conditions of law practise always are to us layman's.
I can see no harm in forwarding any 'discoveries' made by posters on here to yj/frr even if frr are already (hopefully) well aware, especially in this seemingly 11th hour.

Shhh he's busy playing the boring victim narrative. Makes an account a week ago but has had the shares for almost a year. Only starts posting almost 5 months into delisting out of concern for shareholders. That and his dad said people were saying mean things to him, so he had to come and defend him because his dad couldn't take the heat of this extremely aggressive bulletin board anymore. Says they're 21 but has literally no concept of what a 21 year old acts like or talks like. You need to come back with a more convincing act and better character development mate

When are you going to stop spamming on this BB with your troll account. I hate liars, specially ones who are terrible at it.