Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
The federal court judge has now signed off he Joint Motion to Dismiss. We will see what impact this might have on MO v SN at the county level.
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-v-Ozannes/ORDER-OF-DISMISSAL-granting-11-Joint-MOTION-to-Dismiss-Case-terminated-on-6-16-23-Signed-by-Judge-Alfred-H-Bennett-Parties-notified-GabrielleLyons-4/txsd-4:2023-cv-00644-00012?user_id=guest
Thanks ODR1 - hopefully there is more substantive news soon.
No offence to Yellow Jersey, but this is a trivial case compared to the others on the books.
YJ have amended their Petition and are now seeking US$32K, down from the US$52K they sought in the original Petition. There is no explanation in the filing for the newly revised figure.
Phil_2018 – you are getting your cases mixed up.
FRC v Mourant Ozannes (MO) is a case brought by FRC against MO claiming US$260m for breach of contract. Both parties have now asked the court to dismiss the case.
Separate-yet-linked (by FRC), is MO v SN, ZM which is the case you are discussing. This is a civil case involving the enforcement of a foreign debt involving SN & ZM in a personal capacity for approx. US$1m each. Both SN & ZM had, in the original Cayman case, agreed to the judgement against them. The issue since then, and the reason for the never-ending Texas case, is the way MO are trying to use the Texas court system to enforce the debt. They (SN claims) have used the wrong procedures, foreign judgement formats etc. meaning MO has already had one judgement thrown out, so this is another attempt to collect payment.
These cases are separate-yet-linked because FRC recently offered to drop their case (FRC v MO) if Mourant Ozannes did a deal on their case (MO v SN). In the last filing on this MO declined the deal.
Great if they have indeed done a deal with case(s) dropped and money paid to Mourant in settlement of the MO v SN case. The fact the joint Motion to Dismiss in the FRC v MO states both parties will pay their own costs might be a small hint of that.
It is also possible that FRC have dropped their case as it was a weak play and they now need to focus minds / funds on other cases – YA II will soon be in court trying to have the bailiffs sent in to collect their payment, and there are Hope-related cases still on the books.
So we need to see if the dismissal of FRC v MO has any effect on MO v SN with a motion for settlement or dismissal.
It is great that one, possibly two pieces of litigation are off the books, and it fits the company statement regarding their “methodical” approach to litigation, but it would be more illuminating to see movement in the Hope-related cases.
I should have added that it is likely the Mourant v SN case will only conclude once the Federal case (FRC v Mourant) is signed off.
The "Motion to Strike Unnoticed Trial Setting" I mentioned in my last post states that "Nicandros requests that this case be taken from the Court’s November 28, 2022 trial docket and the Parties be permitted to set this case for trial on a mutually agreeable date", so if they have been talking about a deal at the Federal level (and the Federal case included mention of this case) it perhaps makes sense that nothing has happened at the County level pending the outcome of their talks.
WHamBoy - There are no updates in any of the open cases. In YA II v FRC the judge hasn't signed any order on the hearing dates and the case still shows on the dockets for the date FRC requested (14/8/23) and the date YA II requested (10/7/23). It's not unusual for dates to come and go in the county courts without anything being filed, or made public. For example in Mourant Ozannes v SN, the last filing was "Notice to Strike Unnoticed Trial Setting" and that was last November.
The Federal case (FRC v Mourant Ozannes) hasn't been signed off by the judge, but there is no reason to think this won't happen given its a joint motion and, typically, the Federal courts move much quicker than the county courts so we should see the sign off soon.
Yes it is good news to get rid of another case and it will be even better if we see positive movement in the remaining cases in which the company / SN is the defendant.
Outside of Mourant Ozannes v SN, we should see something soon in YA II v FRC as YA II push for the court to sanction the company, which hopefully means a deal might be in sight. We also need to see developments in the Hope-related FIC v SN case.
I expect the Mourant Ozannes v SN case might go the same way as they had previously linked the two cases.
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-v-Ozannes/Joint-MOTION-to-Dismiss-by-Frontera-Resources-Corporation-filed-Motion-Docket-Date-6-28-2023-Stratton-John-Robert/txsd-4:2023-cv-00644-00011?user_id=guest
Hi Bezzy - after all this time a lot of these cases are, relatively speaking, just around the corner. Hopefully we will see signs of deals done or more information released as these dates approach.
Federal Court cases:-
Frontera Resources Caucasus Corp. & David Griffin bankruptcy case – no activity since April 2022
Update – none
FRC v Mourant Ozannes – Relatively new. FRC recent offer to settle rebuffed as far as we can tell. Parties arguing over the correct venue for the case. Now linked to the county level case.
Update – none
County Court cases:-
Mourant Ozannes v SN – chasing debt, now linked to the above Federal case.
Update – Motion for Trial on Merits set for 28/8/23
FIC v SN – all parties to be added / served by 12/5, trial date set for Oct '23.
Update – seems no parties added or served. Still showing a Motion for Trial on Merits set for 9/10/2023
(might be something, might be nothing, but this is a Hope-related case that appears to have missed a court deadline)
YA II LTD v FRC – recognition of a foreign debt – looks like it has a way to go if they don’t settle.
Update – see recent updates posted over last few days regarding Turnover Order and Sanctions. Case summary page shows hearing on Turnover Order set for 10/7/23 (date as requested by YA) but no signed order to that effected uploaded yet.
Yellow Jersey Ltd v FRC – relatively trivial.
Update – Pre-Trial Conference 29/4/24 and Motion for Trial on Merits 13/5/24
Thanks WHamBoy - not sure what happened in my post as all the Caps changed to lower case.
whamboy - the information is from the filings. the lawyers for ya ii wrote to frc lawyers saying their client wanted a hearing asap but they understood the frc lawyers had already advised the court that they would be unavailable in july and could they have a copy of the letter that had been submitted to the court. on receipt of the letter the ya ii lawyers argued that the letter had been submitted to court too late and pushed the court to confirm a hearing date in july.
right now there are two notices before the court on dates. this filed by stratton (frc) on 26 may:-
"a hearing on application for turnover after judgment and motion for contempt and sanctions is set for hearing on august 14, 2023 at 3:00 p.m."
and this filed by hawash (ya ii):-
"please take notice that plaintiff’s application for turnover after judgment and motion for contempt and sanctions is set for oral hearing on monday, july 10, 2023 at 3:00 p.m."
presumably the court will need to pick on or assign its own date.
****nal221 / phil_2018 - the amount is approx. $3m (including original costs) plus whatever costs arise from the current case. if you read the part of the turnover motion i posted a few days back to can see that ya ii aren't necessarily asking for the cash upfront as they offer options such as "...interests in joint ventures or partnerships, right to payments of commissions from a future event, royalties from copyrights and patents, royalties from oil and gas ventures whether in the jurisdiction of the court and whether present or future," so perhaps the company wants to avoid such a lien at this critical time.
Just to clarify about the "holidaying" - this is requested by the lawyers who have advised the court which dates between June - Sept they will not be available. YA argue that the lawyers advised the court too late so we need to see how the judge decides. Right now the case has two hearing dates on the docket - July and August so I expect the court will need to decide soon on the actual date.
Previously on YA II v FRC – YA II petition the court for a “Turnover Order” and a motion for contempt and sanctions.
In today’s episode – FRC file a 7-page response that comes down to –
“1. Plaintiff’s request that it be granted a post-judgment turnover order against Frontera should be denied as no judgment in favor of Plaintiff as against Frontera exists. Relief As To Request For Entry of Order of Contempt and Sanctions — It Should Be Denied
2. Plaintiff’s request is based upon an order compelling post-judgment discovery issued in aid of collection of an alleged judgment. The requested relief should be denied.
3. The order granting a motion to compel post-judgment discovery is void or voidable because no judgment in favor of Plaintiff as against Frontera exists. If no judgment exists there can be no post-judgment discovery.”
And
“26. Plaintiff’s bizarre claim that it automatically — without a trial — without the entry of a signed judgment — without compliance with Texas statutory law — is entitled to the issuance of a turnover order when no judgment exists — is without legal basis. Respectfully, the issuance of a post-judgment turnover order without the existence of a judgment would be without legal support and would constitute an abuse of discretion.
27. Frontera has filed a general denial and a plea for non-recognition of the alleged foreign nation judgment. Frontera has also filed a request for a jury trial in order to have the opportunity to defend and to obtain the full, complete and entire hearing to which it is entitled by statute and due process."
Coming soon on YA II v FRC – FRC already have a hearing date on the Turnover Order set for 14th August. Will the court accept YA II claims of fake vacation letters and shenanigans and grant the YA II request to move the August 14th hearing up to July?
As YA put it –
“In response to the filing of the Turnover Application, Judgment Debtor hijacked the Turnover Application by unilaterally setting it for hearing on August 14, 2023, under the guise that Judgment Debtor’s counsel had a Vacation Letter on file – which he did not until yesterday (i.e., after the deadline for filing same had passed pursuant to Harris County Local Rule 11.2). Accordingly, Judgment Creditor files this Motion seeking an earlier hearing date to thwart Judgment Debtor’s continued dilatory tactics.”
To be continued…
ODR1 - I don't think there is a direct link between this case and the Hope cases, though news of a settlement with Hope might have pushed them to take this latest action.
They have been trying for years to get this cash so it could just be coincidence that they try something new at this time.
YA II have applied for a Turnover Order (basically, send in the bailiffs) and Motion for Contempt.
Regarding the Turnover Order the filing states that -
“13. The Court has the authority to order the Judgment Debtor to turn over any and all property not found to be exempt including but not limited to shares of stock in their name, cash, deposit accounts into which the Judgment Debtor has deposited funds, all inchoate and choate causes of action, all dividends and interest earned from stock, bonds, certificates of deposit, all accounts or fees receivable, all cash income of a going business, interests in joint ventures or partnerships, right to payments of commissions from a future event, royalties from copyrights and patents, royalties from oil and gas ventures whether in the jurisdiction of the court and whether present or future, all property of the debtors (whether real or personal property), all liens to secure performance, inheritances, income tax refunds in the debtors name or to the debtors account whether in trust or by direct deposit and all causes of action whether asserted or non-asserted, and whether inchoate or matured. “
Regarding the Motion for Contempt –
“14. As set forth above, Judgment Debtor refuses to satisfy the judgment or comply with this Court’s order compelling Judgment Debtor to respond to discovery. Accordingly, Judgment Creditor moves this Court to find Judgment Debtor in contempt of this Court’s order. Moreover, Judgment Creditor moves this Court for a ruling that Judgment Debtor’s actions are sanctionable and Judgment Creditor is entitled to recover its attorney’s fees for preparing and urging this Application and in enforcing post-judgment discovery, along with the steps preliminary to same, all as authorized by the Texas Turnover Statute.”
In response, the company have filed that “A hearing on Application for Turnover After Judgment and Motion for Contempt and Sanctions is set for hearing on August 14, 2023 at 3:00 p.m.” and in a separate motion they have requested a jury trial
An explanation of what a turnover order is can be found on this page - https://kretzerfirm.com/what-is-receivership-texas-court/
Turbovb2 - no updates in any of the cases s of today
WHamBoy – I don’t know about any other groups but I recall that someone recently posted that the FB group is mostly re-posts from here, so I do think this BB likely remains the best place for info exchanges.
There must be many groups of people – PI’s, financial institutions, various state agencies, staff / ex-staff etc. all waiting for FRC to finally show their hand, so it’s not just us sitting on the sidelines hoping to finally get some substantive news.
WhamBoy – don’t get spooked by the relative silence – with ZM out the way and the front-line Hope cases settled, the “big reveal” as you put it has never been closer. The flipside is the information flow is now greatly reduced.
I cannot give you a time-lime. If I knew it I wouldn’t share it on a public BB less others try to do damage.
But you can look to happenings in other areas and see if things fit.
You could call this more of a non-happening, but there are no filings in the FIC v SN case. The last action date was 12/05 and we are now outside the typical window for filings to be uploaded. It could just be an admin delay, but it is unusual given we typically get to see filings about 24-48 hours after the due date.
FIC v SN is a Hope-related case, but it is for the liquidators to file and ultimately, decide how they proceed with this case. If Hope has withdrawn financial / other types of support then the liquidators might decide there is little point in proceeding. In many states the non-filing of Joinders is a cause for dismissal but not in Texas. So I presume someone will have to file something regarding the status of the case at some point.
Remember the company said that they need to close out the Hope related cases in order to move forward, I think they used the word “methodical”. These cases also depend on court procedure and schedule. The ZM case took 6 months to officially close (due to appeals and intra-court procedures) but we have already seen the Federal cases can close very quickly, in a matter of days. We need the same type of response time in the outstanding cases.
Today, the GOGC announced a deal with a German bank on a green energy project. I can see the GOGC have a productive relationship with Block both directly and via the partnership with GO&G. There is a lot of chatter now about Georgia becoming more active in its energy security and independence. The last we heard they were very clear on FRC – come to the table, meet our requirements ($$$) and let’s make a deal or the GOGC will go it alone. Nothing so far to say that talks with FRC have failed to conclude and they are now going it alone despite their relatively aggressive push with other markets and investors.
But the GOGC must give up at some point, especially if Georgia becomes more attractive to investors. ZM’s non-compete expires in 2024, though hopefully he will be celebrating that event behind bars.
Sorry I cannot give you a definite - how you feel if I said "next week" and that comes and goes without event? It is as reliant on the company / GOGC as it is on the courts right now, and not all those factors can be 100% controlled.
Artem Sanishvili left Frontera in 2012 - a good example that you should always cross-check anything on LinkedIn in case the page is out of date as many of them often are.