Firering Strategic Minerals: From explorer to producer. Watch the video here.
There are a couple of other cases where Hope can be considered an interested party, but as far as I can tell but he is neither a plaintiff nor defendant in those cases.
Those cases involve FIC and other subsidiaries linked to events in the Cayman Islands. FIC's claim in FRC v Hope was dismissed due to FIC's failure to file motions. The other FIC case (FIC v SN) has actions due mid-May so we will see if they file anything or have walked away from that case as well. Perhaps you could argue this is a private case.
Looks like OMF v SN has settled. More soon
Without news from the company on the reach of this settlement (and hard to believe it is not global in scope) or more motions to dismiss being filed, we will need to watch for developments in other Hope cases.
In OMF v SN an end-Feb deadline for Dispositive Motions passed without either side filing anything. The next key date in that case is 5/5 for filing Non-Dispositive Motions and Jury Trial date set for 11/7.
There is one possible side-effect we need to keep in mind as these cases resolve. Most of the information we have recently "sleuthed" has in large part come from court filings. As that information channel starts to close, and failing an improvement in comms from other sources, our ability to keep up with developments in the short-term might diminish. In all of the comms from the company that have been shared here, I can only think of 2, maybe 3, pieces of news that I would call new. It's reassuring to hear it from the company but almost all of the information we have we found ourselves.
I don’t recall any statement from the company that said radio silence was specific to the outcome of FRC v Hope as per earlier comment by Phil_2018.
The company has repeatedly stated that it would be more communicative “once all legal actions have concluded”. We may think some of the outstanding (non-Hope) cases are of little consequence, maybe they see it differently. So perhaps still some way to go if they really do mean every case must conclude. Hopefully they are now incentivized to clear these lesser cases as quickly as they can. Right now, there are about 6 or 7 open cases.
I should have added that based on the case schedule, we do know the judge will sit on 13/4 (as both parties would have had to appear in his court on that date if they missed the submission deadline) so we might get it signed then if not before.
WhamBoy - to add to the comments by MontiBurns,
If you remember both sides advised the court that a deal had been agreed end January. I doubt either party would agree to such a sweeping statement being made to court had that not been the case. Regarding movements in the other cases (I hope I am right as well!) I expect both parties would want to wait until the judge signs off on the Cali case before we see any public signs of movement elsewhere.
I hope not, but if this really is a global settlement, the other cases might be shunted off to the sidelines, treated more as now-obsolete procedural issues, and the parties will just file as and when existing deadlines come around. To the layperson you would think they would want it dealt with ASAP, but maybe that costs more money and both parties had stated they want to cut out further legal costs. We will see after the judge signs.
Thanks ****nal221 - key now is movement in the other Hope cases were Hope is the claimant suing FRC. It would be mad for FRC to walk away from just the one case were they are claimant, but we won't know for sure until we see how those cases play out.
Also filed today though not quite as exciting or relevant as the Cali case filing.
This is the case were FRC sued for $260m and is related to Ozannes v SN, ZM collection of a foreign debt. FRC originally filed at County level, Ozannes applied to move it to Federal court, FRC objected to the move and this is Ozannes reply to that rejection. The filing is made up of technical arguments to support defendants position that the case belongs in federal court.
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-v-Ozannes/RESPONSE-to-7-MOTION-to-Remand-filed-by-Mourant-Ozannes-Cayman-LLP/txsd-4:2023-cv-00644-00010?user_id=guest
MontiBurns - seems our messages crossed. There is likely still a fair amount of housekeeping to be done on this and related cases, assuming it's a global settlement, so I do keep in contact but I doubt they will comment just yet. Lets see how things develop once this case is signed off by the judge and how things move in the other cases.
WHamBoy - This is a proposed order, so we still need the judge to sign off so officially ending the case. As the parties filed in time, and the proposal is very clear, I expect this to be a formality. Based on previous motions, the judge does tend to sign off very quickly. So that will hopefully be the next and final document in this case.
In this case, FIC ceased involvement some time ago. So we might see the other FIC case – FIC v SN, collapse. Right now, it’s on the docket for trial in October 2023 with some submission dates between May – September.
The Cali case is dismissed with prejudice so not only is that done and dusted without fear of relitigation, but it would be logical to expect the other Hope cases to also end in agreement.
And if all that happens it would seem to conclude all the significant corporate-level legal actions pending in the USA. That has to be a positive if the company is in talks with financial institutions. It also adds another layer of clarity to the Georgian state agencies who at one point had to fend off Hope vying for the asset.
Whilst winning the court cases in the USA doesn’t automatically mean a deal is possible in Georgia, the company would have no chance at success in Georgia had they failed to win, or had judgements been ambiguous, regarding Hope and the ZM case.
No comments to share from the company thus far, the case is still technically open.
We should have access to the filing soon
Thanks Bezzy,
Easter isn't a public holiday at all in the USA the way it is in the UK, certainly not at the federal level, so courts etc will be open for business as usual both Friday and Monday. Only court / other workers who might work Sundays (perhaps filing clerks etc) get the Sunday off. Hopefully it is signed and already submitted as you say.
We are signed up for "instant access" on this case so, time-zone permitting, we should be alerted as soon as the document is filed.
As WHamBoy has been reminding us, some potentially crucial dates will soon be upon us.
In the FRC v Hope case (AKA the Cali Case) the court has mandated that the parties have until 10/4 to produce a Stipulation of Dismissal that means the deal has been formally concluded and the case is now moot.
As a reminder, FRC filed a motion 31/1 that that “the parties in this action (other than Plaintiff Frontera International Corporation), have reached a settlement in principle resolving all claims. Such parties will file a Stipulation for Dismissal upon execution of their settlement agreement.”
On 10/2 the court issued its Standby Order of Dismissal stating “The Court has been informed that a settlement has been reached between Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation and Defendants.” and setting out the filing deadline mentioned above.
There is nothing filed thus far to suggest matters have changed. Both parties do tend to take things to the wire when it comes to filings.
If they do fail to file, both parties must appear in court on 13/4 to explain why. The court will likely take a very dim view if either side reneges on an agreement.
In a related case, OMF v SN, a court mandated dated for submissions (24/2) on motions has come and gone without event. Neither party filed motions and the court has not, as far as can be seen, chased. Hopefully a sign that such submissions are no longer needed but we cannot be sure until we see further filings to that effect.
These are both Federal level cases, and, generally speaking, they tend to file and update records faster than county level courts. We do not have access to documents, federal or county, that are considered commercially sensitive.
Outside of these court actions, there should be a lobbying update filed around the middle of April.
Erazzel – The information related to the GOGC working the 1% is available in the Georgian registry and in a press report kindly shared by Chris572 (and no, you don’t need to question their motives for posting). Further, this was then translated by me on 29th Jan. Feel free to check the translation archive for the full article.
No hidden agenda, no dark forces at play, just hard and honest sleuthing the likes of which you and lazy trolls like jv123 would know nothing about but, hypocritically, have no qualms in benefiting from. Your “doubts” are a reflection on you, not me.
I will take the advice of WHamBoy and, having given you your proof, consider this concluded.
erazzel – pleaser don’t send me PM’s as I cannot access them. Seems you have forgotten you had a “Looed please justify yourself” session a while back which I indulged you even though I had no need to. I suggest you revisit earlier posts if it helps?
soss613 - they aren't "making money" as such, they appear to be operating within the guidelines set by the Enforecement Bureau who agreed that they could work the fields to offset monies owed by the company.
****nal221 – I do think the only option is to try and agree terms with the GOGC and restart operations themselves.
More generally, the company is not operational in Georgia, as confirmed by the company, the state agencies, and the local courts. FRC haven’t produced anything but court cases in a long time. We haven’t seen anything to show that situation has now changed.
Previous attempts to sell on (by the JOL’s) were rebuffed by the state agencies. We would have been unlikely to see a cent from any such fire sale.
The GOGC have given FRC some leeway to negotiate a new deal, but as they recently stated, they are prepared to continue extraction themselves.
A new deal is likely the quickest way to work around the limitations imposed by the local courts on operations providing FRC can agree the pre-deal demands of the GOGC and still have the financial and technical package in place that satisfies the GOGC post deal.
Next up – will the Hope case conclude as per the dates stipulated by the courts, evidence of which we should see in the next few days.
If you scroll back to 29th Jan under the "Frontera may return to the oil sector of Georgia" thread you can see the article and associated discussion.