R8pilot - yes thats a great observation.
I did a bit of digging and the situation is as R8pilot says - the judge can extend the TRO one time.
However both parties can extend the TRO as many times as they want providing both parties agree. All extensions to date have been at the request of the parties.
I can now see that the TRO - though posted within the past 24 hours - actually ran out yesterday! I assumed it was new and the dates didn't click with me when I posted. Apologies. So not sure what the state of play is.
Jonathansxx - this is what the TRO says - "This Temporary Restraining Order is extended until the Court’s ruling on Counter-
Defendants’ application for temporary injunction or June 11, 2021 at 5:00 p.m., whichever is earlier."
Its not signed but it says agreed by all parties and the court.
Its also likely this will again delay the Appeal to Compel Arbitration.
Had those sequence of events not taken place the livestream would not have been taken down, or at least shareholders wouldn’t be blamed for it. Instead, we would be able to see which side asks to go off-camera and why. It might have helped us better understand the dynamic of the case and we might get a feel for the way the judge is leading. Opportunity lost.
Just because we have been treated disgracefully doesn’t mean the judge can’t invoke a procedural rule in her own court. Regrettably, these two issues are unrelated as far as the court in concerned.
Yes WHamboy, the threat (I assume to ZM, surely not the judge) aside, I am sure some of the messages where sent with good intent and to try and convey to an audience shareholder plight. Unfortunately they had the opposite effect. As you say, it also exposed a new way for others to attempt to inflict damage to FRR.
I just saw the post by Bigdouble who shared his reply from the clerk to the court.
It seems the judge has indeed continued to receive messages in addition to the ones she mentioned in open court.
WHamboy - nothing loaded so far, but they can get loaded at any time.
It is so frustrating that we have lost the livefeed. I think from the judges perspective there was the incidents on Zoom and now direct messaging. So I think from her perspective it came across as an ongoing pattern of disruption that would likely continue to disrupt her court. She made clear on numerous occasions how packed her schedule is so she had no patience for this behavior.
As Oopsi pointed out, its a shame that this may well have helped ZM to continue to screw us all.
Every judge has a FB page where they make posts related to their individual courts. For example "my court closed due to bad weather", reminding people to register to vote, that sort of thing.
I might have misheard, but when she first raised this matter at the start of the hearing she said it wasn't her personal account that had been messaged but her official court page.
Some disappointing news - As a result of people messaging the judge, she has ruled that the livestream will be turned off for the duration of the hearing on the TI.
Her ruling is that “anyone wishing to see the proceedings will have to appear in my courtroom in person at my discretion.”
This is the part I mean about 'two parts' - but I think the case has been dismissed entirely. Hopefully better minds can confirm if I am interpreting it correctly.
This is from the FRC Motion to dismiss
YA II PN, LTD (“YA II”) sued Frontera in the United Kingdom for breach of contract and obtained a no-answer default judgment against Frontera (“UK Default Judgment”). YA II then sought to enforce the UK Default Judgment by filing this case. On June 22, 2020, this Court signed the Enforcement Order.
Frontera challenged both the UK Default Judgment and the default Enforcement Order. In December 2020, this Court granted Frontera’s motion to stay all proceedings pending resolution of Frontera’s appeal of the UK Default Judgment, but reserved consideration of Frontera’s motion to vacate the Enforcement Order. Because YA II argued that the Enforcement Order was a final judgment, Frontera also filed a restricted appeal of the Enforcement Order as a precautionary measure to preserve its appellate rights. That appeal is pending, with Frontera’s opening brief filed on May 14, 2021. In that brief, Frontera asked the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal for lackof jurisdiction if the Enforcement Order is not a final, appealable judgment or otherwise vacate the order.
Meanwhile, Frontera also challenged the UK Default Judgment, which formed the sole basis for these proceedings before the Court. On May 26, 2021, following a hearing, the UK High Court issued an order setting aside YA II’s default judgment against Frontera. Here is the language from the order, which is attached as Exhibit A:
WHamboy - yes the court dismissed the Texas case as a result of the judgement in London. Not sure if they can have another go in London but for now its dismissed as far as Texas is concerned.
I have a vague memory that this case had two parts in Texas so not sure if this Order means both sides of the case have been vacated. Maybe Oopsi or NJames can provide a better explanation.
I haven't had any update so they are either in closed session or its as Syric has posted - they have agreed to extend and possibly set new dates. Will post should I hear anything.
This is from the new TRO (thanks Sycic)
SECOND AGREED EXTENDED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
This Temporary Restraining Order was originally granted by Judge Jaclanel McFarland on May 4, 2021, at 4:53 p.m. It was extended by Agreement of the Parties and by Order of this Court to May 28, 2021. It has now been extended by Agreement of the Parties and by Order of this Court from May 28, 2021 to June 11, 2021. Below is the language of the original Temporary Restraining Order which is being extended by agreement.
tsbs1 - no need to apologize, I am as angry as you at the way we have been treated.
Its just that going through the judge is a serious breach of protocol that reflects badly on FRC side. As you might have heard, it takes up the courts time as they have to enter it as extra evidence even though it won't be read or used - all at a time when the judge is trying to move things along. With time so tight and ZM about to be grilled the court wasted precious time dealing with this.
Between delist and the termination of ZM there was zero communication from the company to shareholders. Blame the old BOD all you want, but ZM was the very public face and spokesperson for the company. I imagine over 90% of any efforts to contact the company where primarily aimed at finding ways to communicate with him.
Since his removal last August, and under a new BOD, we have seen the green shoots of shareholder outreach. One of the recent messages from the company committed to further develop and formalize communications in tandem with the company plan of action.
We are now in the dangerous position of the company deciding that shareholder comms might not be so worthwhile after all.
As you can see on the live-stream, we have a very experienced legal team fighting for our collective best interests. Let them do their job. Nothing you say or do at this point in time can better the evidence they already have.
Expressing that you are an angry shareholder (if that is what the messages said) might make the person feel better in the moment, but all it is actually doing is helping the Plaintiff who is trying to steal your investment.
I am sure there will be a time when the company will listen to ‘our side’ of the story. Please understand that ‘now’ is not that time.