Dulwhichman - this is a FRC filing in part to have the case returned to county court (at least I think that is what the purpose is) so FRC will be selective in what the show to suit their needs and they are showing that they are seeking settlement. We can see in the original Mourant v SN case there was an element of the parties working together. Perhaps this newer FRC case is a way to hurry the original case along given FRC are now willing to drop the claim in return for a deal for SN.
We don't know how high or low that particular offer was, but I presume Mourant knows SN has access to money / assets and they want more of a return as they won't get a cent from ZM. The court will much prefer a deal so hopefully the parties can figure out how much SN needs to pay and how much Mourant is willing to forgo.
Not sure if that answers your question but better an attempt at a deal than yet another court case.
SN is the defendant (with ZM) making it his personal debt to pay. The offer is X amount up front and the rest kicked down the road. I expect Mourant took the history of debt avoidance into account when deciding to decline settlement, at least for now. We don't yet know if a more favorable offer has been submitted.
****nal221 - yes, compared to the Hope case these ones are of lesser importance, though they don't help the reputation of SN / the company by remaining open.
While we wait for news on the Hope case, 2 new filings in the FRC v Mourant case. This first filing has 8 pages. You can pretty much ignore pages 1 - 7, but page 8 is an interesting read in relation to both this and the Mourant v SN, ZM case -
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-v-Ozannes/Exhibit-Frontera-Resources-Corporation-Motion-To-Remand-Exhibits/txsd-4:2023-cv-00644-00007-001?user_id=guest
And here, confirmation the company remains active -
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-v-Ozannes/CORPORATE-DISCLOSURE-STATEMENT-by-Frontera-Resources-Corporation-filed-Stratton-John-Robert/txsd-4:2023-cv-00644-00008?user_id=guest
ODR / ****nal221 - thanks and lets hope when news finally does drop it is of the positive variety.
All quiet right now - just some procedural filings by both FRC and Mourant now this particular case has moved to Federal Court. In the Hope case, they have until mid April to advise the court that the settlement has been finalized.
We have "instant access" to this case so should be alerted when any documents are filed with the court.
There are two individual yet connected cases
1 – Mourant Ozannes v SN, ZM – collection of a foreign debt, been going on forever.
2 – FRC v Mourant Ozannes – the relatively new case Mourant want dismissed
Mourant went to great lengths to launch and maintain case #1 and argued that Texas was the proper venue to try and settle the case. Many of the claims made by FRC against Mourant in case #2 are already stated in FRC filings in case #1.
FRC, in its original petition in case #2, argued that Texas was the proper venue as "Mourant has invoked the jurisdiction of Texas Courts by bringing suit in Mourant Ozannes v SN, ZM”
Pending whatever might be happening in the other cases, presumably FRC will need to file an opposing motion before the deadline for the court to consider the merits of the Mourant motion
The “Dismiss” document can now be accessed and it is in fact a Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendant, Mourant, citing lack of jurisdiction, and improper venue.
According to Google, the court must reply within 45 days.
You can access the Motion to Dismiss here - https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-v-Ozannes/Dismiss/txsd-4:2023-cv-00644-00004?user_id=guest
I keep getting a "technical error" when trying to download the dismiss document, I will try again later and hopefully it provides more background.
There are no updates in the other Hope case.
This is the relatively new case where FRC attempted to sue Mourant for $280m for breach of contract.
The case is now flagged as "Dismissed". I will try to access the motion to see if it provides more detail, but the line entry simply reads case dismissed.
MontiBurns – Technically, the parties have until early April to show the court that a deal has completed.
As recently shared by Earsbern – “Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation and Defendants are required to file a stipulation of dismissal by April 10, 2023. If a stipulation of dismissal is not filed by that date, Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation and Defendants are ordered to appear on April 13, 2023 at 1:30PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse and show cause why the claims of Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation should not be dismissed.”
FIC is handled a bit differently as they are dormant in this case – “Frontera International Corporation is ordered to file papers no later than March 9, 2023 showing cause why its claims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In the event Plaintiff Frontera International Corporation does not respond to this order, it claims will be dismissed without further notice.”
We have passed a filing deadline in another Hope-related case (OMF v Nicandros et al) where a dispositive filing was due 24th Feb, but nothing so far to say if anything was filed or if the case has been affected by settlement in the Cali case.
TLDR = Too Long, Didn't Read
The Federal Court will hold a pretrial and scheduling conference on 23 June 2023.
Hello Bezzy – I don't think the non-Hope related cases will automatically have a negative impact on funding. The outstanding cases are either personal involving SN & ZM, small claims by suppliers like YJ, or FRC are the plaintiff and not on the defensive. Recall that even when the Hope and ZM cases were in progress the company claimed to have a $100m credit facility set up.
Not sure on the sale issue – enticing as that sounds, the GOGC have made it clear they will deal with FRC and the statements from the company talk of FRC returning to operations.
This is the case in which FRC are suing for $280m claiming breach of contact.
The defendant - Mourant - have motioned that court for the case to be moved from Texas Civil Court to Texas Federal Court, citing jurisdictional issues and the amount of money being claimed. It looks like the court has agreed to defendants request.
Thanks ****nal221 - there are some procedural movements in a couple of the other cases to move things along. Slowly but surely, these cases will eventually come to trial or be settled.
The court has now set the schedule for the trial, which I expect will be moot if the Hope deal is signed and its a global agreement.
The case process begins May 2023, Mediation August 2023 and trial October 2023.
Great news toatie and hope all is resolved soon
MadP – you state “if he hadn't tried to steal Block 12, SH/O would have gotten the lot.” How?
Keep in mind that:-
- The company had already legally cornered OMF – the “5% Royalty”
- The liquidators had already offered OMF as a prospect to the GG and OMF was rejected (the liquidators “failed to assign the PSC interest to another party acceptable to the Georgian Government” ( FIC petition)
- Hope then appealed directly to the GG and was again rejected.
Indeed the likely outcome would have been the cancellation of the PSC (as recommended by the liquidators), and had that happened ZM might have got the lot via his mirror operation. As that didn't happen, he converted it instead. Nothing to do with keeping it from Hope. It was to keep it from everyone but himself.
You keep asserting it as a given that OMF would have automatically gotten the lot when evidence shows the opposite would have played out.