Member Info for Looed

Thanks B20, it is worth noting that the personal details in the petition aren’t the basis of the legal action. Vicky isn’t suing Steve over the care (or lack of care) of their mother. Those emotional elements are there to provide background and, more importantly, to help establish a pattern of behaviour such as control, exclusion, and lack of transparency, all of which directly supports her core legal claims.

Even if the funding of Frontera or other ventures was 100% well-intentioned, the legal issue is how those decisions were made and communicated, especially given the trust gave Steve broad powers (which Vicky had originally agreed to).

Whether Vicky maintained contact with her mother may raise personal questions in some, but it’s not central to the legal argument. Her claims are rooted in Texas trust law, not family law. The fact they are siblings is irrelevant here, it is one member of a legal trust accusing another of serious breaches.

Mills240 - thanks for the link, it is possible that is the local publication that is referenced in para 44

Defendants have begun filing their “General Denials” which is standard procedure and we have seen it used many times by SN / company in other cases. SN has not yet filed a response.

The court has scheduled a preliminary hearing for April 29th, which will likely be used to address procedural matters, review any motions filed, set timelines, and generally decide if / how the case will proceed.

cazbraz – although the allegations are serious, the petition does not allege any criminal activity. This is a civil case so there is no threat of jail or criminal prosecution at this stage.

Mills240 – thanks for finding that. It may seem counterintuitive, but the court could actually view that announcement as supporting the claim made in Paragraph 44 of the petition, that no personal effort was made to inform Vicky, despite fiduciary duties requiring it. You didn’t include a link, but it reads like a local legal notice, so maybe that is the publication that is mentioned in para 44.

AI Summary of the Petition -

"A legal petition has been filed by Steve’s sister, Vicky Nicandros Elliott, about how CSTN Ltd. — a family trust partnership — was used to fund Frontera and other companies controlled by Steve.

Q- What’s being alleged?

Over $14 million was directed from CSTN into businesses Steve controlled — including Frontera — without informing other family members who also had a financial interest in CSTN.

Steve had the legal power to act alone under the CSTN agreement (amended in 2006), but the petition argues that Texas law still applies, and Texas trust law requires more than just authority — it requires transparency, fairness, and accountability.

In short: Texas fiduciary law overrides what the CSTN agreement allowed him to do.

The petition also alleges that Steve withheld news of their mother Tassie’s death from Vicky for over two years — part of a broader claim that he deliberately excluded her from family affairs and financial matters.

The filing covers both personal and professional misconduct, suggesting a pattern of behaviour that allegedly undermined trust obligations and family relationships alike.

A key issue is that Steve was in a conflict of interest — he was both managing the funds and personally benefiting from the outcome. Under Texas law, that creates strict duties to disclose, avoid self-dealing, and act in the best interests of all beneficiaries.

While the petition acknowledges Steve may have acted in good faith, it argues that under Texas law, good faith is not enough. Fiduciaries must still follow strict legal duties — and even well-intentioned decisions can breach the law if they involve using trust money for personal gain without proper oversight or consent."

The Petition and related case filings can be accessed via -

https://www.cclerk.hctx.net/Applications/WebSearch/CourtSearch.aspx?CaseType=Civil

Pt. 8 (final part)

VI. Exemplary Damages

68. Defendants are also liable to Vicky for exemplary damages because their actions were fraudulent, grossly negligent, and/or committed with malice.

Discovery Rule

69. Any potentially applicable statute of limitations is tolled until Vicky received the resignation letter from NATCO in or around June 2023, which was the first time she had any reason to believe Defendants had been breaching their fiduciary duties and failing to inform her of material information relating to CSTN and the Trusts.

Fraudulent Concealment

70. Defendants fraudulently concealed Steve's self-dealing and Tassie's death from Vicky, which also tolls any applicable statute of limitations.

Conditions Precedent

71. All conditions precedent to Vicky's claims for relief either have been performed or have occurred.

Jury Demand

72. Vicky demands a trial by jury and will tender the applicable fee.

Prayer

73. Vicky respectfully requests that the Court compel the Trustee Defendants to deliver a full and complete statement of accounts of the Trusts and award her actual damages, attorneys' fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and any other relief to which she may be entitled.

Pt. 7

54. Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to Vicky by engaging in self-dealing and depleting CSTN's and the Trusts' assets and/or knowingly participating in such breaches by Steve.

55. The Trustee Defendants were accountable to Vicky for the Trusts' property and failed to inform her that Steve, with their assistance, was depleting the Trusts' assets for his own benefit. They breached their duty to protect the Trusts from Steve's self-dealing and compounded that breach by failing to disclose to Vicky that Steve was engaged in self-dealing and depleting the Trust's assets.

56. The Trustee Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent co-trustees from committing serious breaches of trust and to compel redress. Tex. Prop. Code § 114.006.

57. Mercer and NATCO are further liable for Kanaly's breaches of trust because they knew or should have known of the situation constituting a breach of trust by their predecessor(s), improperly permitted it to continue, and failed to make reasonable efforts to compel a redress of Kanaly's breaches of trust. Tex. Prop. Code § 114.064.

58. Defendants' breaches of trust and fiduciary duties have caused damage to Vicky of well over $1 million. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 47(c).

59. The Trustee Defendants are liable to Vicky for damages resulting from their breaches of trust and fiduciary duties, including but not limited to the loss or depreciation in the value of the Trusts resulting from their breaches of duties, any profits made by them through the breaches, and any profits that would have accrued to the Trusts if there had been no breach of trust. Tex. Prop. Code § 114.001(c).

60. Defendants have also benefited at Vicky's expense from their breaches of fiduciary duty and/or knowing participation in Steve's breaches of fiduciary duties. Vicky therefore seeks disgorgement of trustee fees and

any other unjust enrichment by the Defendants.

III. Negligence

61. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

62. Defendants' actions described above also constitute negligence and/or professional negligence and have caused actual damages to Vicky.

IV. Attorneys' Fees

63. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

64. Vicky is entitled to recover her reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and costs incurred in pursuing her claims pursuant to the LPA, Chapter 38 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, Sections 113.151 and 114.064 of the Texas Property Code, and any other applicable contract or statute.

V. Constructive Trust

65. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

66. Defendants are holding identifiable property that belongs to Vicky as a beneficiary of the Trusts. Defendants have been or will be unjustly enriched by their wrongdoing.

67. Vicky is entitled to the imposition of a constructive trust over any assets in the Trusts and any assets Defendants have received out of the Trusts.

Pt. 6

46. If Defendants had informed Vicky that her right to become a trustee of the Trusts had been triggered, then Vicky would have learned of her mother's death despite Steve's efforts to hide it from her. If Defendants had not concealed Tassie's death from Vicky, then Vicky would have contested the probate of Tassie's 2019 will and had it declared void for undue influence and/or lack of capacity. And if informed of her ability to assume the trusteeship, Vicky would have also acquired access to information that would have revealed Steve's self-dealing years earlier, before he drained nearly $2 million more.

47. In the first half of 2024, attorneys representing Vicky wrote to NATCO and Andrew Kanaly, who currently works for Mercer, requesting accountings for each of the Trusts since their inception-noting Vicky had never received any accountings—and the tax return for Constantine's estate. To date, Mercer and NATCO have only provided incomplete information and the information provided makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine the market value of the assets at issue.

Causes of Action

I. Suit for Accounting

48. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

49. The Trustee Defendants failed to provide a full and complete accounting in response to Vicky's written demand.

50. Pursuant to Section 113.151 of the Texas Property Code, Vicky asks the Court to compel the Trust Defendants to provide a full and complete accounting of the Trusts since their inception, including adequate descriptions of the Trusts' assets disclosing their market values. In particular, Vicky requests that the Court compel the Trustee Defendants to produce a written statement of accounts for each of the Trusts, on at least a yearly basis, showing:

(1) All trust property that has come to the trustee's knowledge or into the trustee's possession and that has not been previously listed or inventoried as property of the trust;

(2) A complete account of receipts, disbursements, and other transactions regarding the trust property for the period covered by the account, including their source and nature-including any fees paid to or income generated for the Trust Defendants-with receipts of principal and income shown separately;

(3) A listing of all property that has been administered, with an adequate description of each asset, including its market value;

(4) The cash balance on hand and the name and location of the depository where the balance is kept; and

(5) All known liabilities owed by the trust.

II. Breach of Trust and Fiduciary Duties

51. The preceding paragraphs are incorporated here by reference.

52. Defendants, as general partners of CSTN and/or trustees of the Trusts, owed formal fiduciary duties to Vicky as a limited partner and beneficiary/remainderman of the Trusts.

53. Steve also owed Vicky an informal fiduciary duty.

Pt. 5

39. Vicky believed the Trustee Defendants would honor their fiduciary duties to her by protecting her interests in CSTN and the Trusts and informing her if Steve took any actions to jeopardize her interests. Before their deaths, Constantine and Tassie both assured Vicky that she and her family would be taken care of by CSTN and the Trusts and that she did not need to worry because Kanaly was involved. The Trustee Defendants' involvement therefore lulled Vicky into a false sense of security and enabled Steve to drain her inheritance into his own pockets.

40. Following NATCO's attempted resignation, NATCO and Andrew Kanaly assisted Steve in attempting to take over as sole trustee of the Trusts, despite acknowledging Vicky was supposed to serve as co-trustee.

41. In September 2023, NATCO, "doing business as Kanaly Trust Company," assigned to Steve as successor trustee of the Trusts all of NATCO's interests in CSTN as both general and limited partners.

42. After Lucas spoke with NATCO's trust officer, Vicky also learned that Steve, with the other Defendants' knowledge and assistance, not only failed to tell Vicky their mother had died but actively prevented Vicky from learning the truth. Despite Tassie's prominent position in both Houston society and her church, no obituary was published, and no announcement was included in the church bulletin.

43. Upon information and belief, Steve exerted undue influence over Tassie after taking her into his home and cutting off her ability to communicate with others. In 2019, as a result of Steve's undue influence, and while believed to be mentally incompetent, Tassie executed a new will. She did not use the well-known Houston law firm that had prepared her prior will, in which her estate would have passed equally to both of her children. The new will completely disinherited Vicky, leaving Tassie's entire estate to Steve, who she also made sole executor. Steve's wife, Jennifer Nicandros, was named as both the successor beneficiary and successor executor.

44. Steve probated Tassie's will after her death. He made no attempt to notify Vicky directly, but posted notice by publication which he knew she would not discover in Tennessee. As a result, Vicky was not able to contest Tassie's 2019 will.

45. Andrew Kanaly and the Trust Defendants knew Tassie had died and that her death affected CSTN and the Trusts in significant ways, including that Steve and Vicky were to become successor trustees of the Trusts.

Pt . 4

31. In response to questioning by Lucas, NATCO's trust officer provided a great deal of shocking information and later, documents demonstrating at least part of what had happened to Vicky's inheritance.

32. Vicky learned that prior to 2016, Steve had used his position in CSTN to cause the partnership to make a large number of loans over the course of many years, totalling over $14 million (perhaps much more), to himself and companies owned by him, including Frontera Resources Corporation, in exchange for promissory notes issued to CSTN. Upon information and belief, those loans were never repaid and Steve never intended to cause them to be repaid. Rather, Steve systematically drained CSTN and the Trusts of nearly all their assets for his own benefit, to the severe detriment of Vicky.

33. The Trustee Defendants and Andrew Kanaly were aware of the loans and signed off on them without ever informing Vicky.

34. In 2016, days before existing promissory notes to CSTN matured, Steve caused Frontera to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and initiated an adversary proceeding against CSTN. Vicky was never informed of this adversary proceeding against CSTN, despite being one of its general partners. Over subsequent years, Steve caused Frontera to file other lawsuits in the Cayman Islands and California in an attempt to prevent collection on its promissory notes and foreclosure on its collateral.

35. The Trustee Defendants and Andrew Kanaly were aware of Frontera's bankruptcy proceedings, other lawsuits, and general unwillingness to pay its debts or fulfill its contractual obligations. Nevertheless, they continued to permit Steve to control CSTN and continue causing it to make even more loans to Frontera without any hope of repayment. They also never attempted to inform Vicky of Steve's actions.

36. After Tassie's death in 2021, the Inter Vivos Trust received a sizable influx of cash, which Defendants caused to be loaned to CSTN in exchange for a number of additional unsecured promissory notes totalling at least $1.8 million. Some, if not all, of these notes were addressed to NATCO and signed by Andrew Kanaly, purportedly on behalf of Mercer as "Investment Advisor" with authority granted to it by the Trusts.

37. Upon information and belief, Steve then caused CSTN to make even more loans to Frontera for his own benefit, without any intention that Frontera ever repay them.

38. Defendants failed to disclose to Vicky that CSTN and the Trusts were being depleted. To the contrary, Steve had consistently assured Vicky over the years that she was taken care of.

Pt. 3

22. In 2006, Steve and Tassie became managing partners, each with the power to act alone on behalf of CSTN. Each was also removable by a vote of the general partners. After Tassie's death, Steve became the sole managing partner.

23. In 1996, Constantine and Tassie also created a charitable organization, the Tassie and Constantine Nicandros Foundation (the "Foundation"), for which they, Steve, and Vicky served as officers and directors. Kanaly was designated to manage the Foundation's investments.

II. Unbeknownst to Vicky-but with the other Defendants' knowledge and assistance-Steve siphoned the assets from CSTN and the Trusts for his own benefit.

24. Upon information and belief, Mercer purchased Kanaly in 2016 and assumed Kanaly's roles and obligations with respect to the Trusts and CSTN. A year later, Kanaly merged with NATCO, which then assumed those roles and obligations.

25. Andrew Kanaly was a principal of Kanaly who was intimately involved with CSTN and the Trusts. He transitioned to a new role at Mercer, where he is still employed. Even after the NATCO merger, Andrew Kanaly remained heavily involved in managing the Trusts and CSTN, and he represented that he was doing so as an employee of Mercer.

26. Vicky was not informed of any of the changes involving Kanaly, including that Mercer and NATCO took over as general partners in CSTN and trustees of the Trusts.

27. On or around June 1, 2023, NATCO mailed a letter to Vicky stating it was resigning as trustee of the Trusts, effective 90 days after delivery of the letter, because they did not have sufficient assets to meet expenses. It also stated that, under the terms of the Trusts, Steve and Vicky were to serve as trustees of the Trusts after Tassie's death.

28. This was the first Vicky learned any information that would have led her to believe the Trusts had been depleted. Even worse, it was the first NATCO informed her Tassie had died more than two years earlier, despite the fact Tassie's death triggered numerous contingencies involving the Trusts.

29. Vicky had cared for Tassie for nearly 20 years after Constantine's death. In 2018, Tassie had been living with Vicky and Vicky's husband, Lucas Elliot, but then moved in with Steve. At that time, Tassie had been declining cognitively and exhibiting signs of dementia. Steve appears to have taken advantage of Tassie's mental condition and cut her off from the outside world, including by taking away her phone. Vicky and Lucas moved to Tennessee shortly after Tassie moved in with Steve, and they had not been able to speak with her since.

30. Lucas called NATCO to inquire about the resignation letter. He spoke with a trust officer who said Steve and Andrew Kanaly had claimed they did not know where Vicky was located or how to contact her. That was false. Not only did Vicky and Lucas still have the same phone numbers, but Lucas is a partner at a law firm who could have easily been found with a simple internet searc

Pt. 2

Discovery Level

12. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.4.

Factual Background

I. The Nicandros Family Limited Partnership (CSTN) & the Trusts

13. Constantine Nicandros was a civic leader in Houston and former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Conoco, Inc. who passed away in 1999. He was survived by his wife, Tassia V. Nicandros ("Tassie"), and their two children, Plaintiff Vicky Nicandros Elliot and Defendant Steve Constantine Nicandros.

14. Kanaly and Tassie originally served as co-executors of Constantine's estate, which had a total value of over $17 million at his death.

15. Tassie died on March 14, 2021, leaving, Kanaly (or its successor) as the sole remaining court-appointed executor of Constantine's estate.

16. During their lives, Constantine and Tassie created the Nicandros Inter Vivos Trust to hold substantial assets for the benefit of their family. Constantine's will also created the Tassie Nicandros Exempt and Non-Exempt Marital Trusts and the Nicandros Family Trust (also known as the Nicandros Bypass Trust) (all six trusts collectively, the "Trusts"). Constantine and Tassie also created the 1996 Nicandros Issue GST Trusts for the benefit of Steve and Vicky, with Steve and Vicky serving as trustees of their respective trusts. The GST Trusts are not included in the defined term "Trusts" herein, but they are beneficiaries of the Exempt Marital Trust and Family Trust.

17. Kanaly was a trustee of each of the Trusts. In addition to receiving trustee/management fees, Kanaly invested the Trusts' assets in Kanaly-sponsored investments that generated income for Kanaly.

18. After Tassie's death, Vicky and Steve became the primary beneficiaries of the Trusts.

19. In 1996, Constantine formed a family limited partnership, CSTN, Ltd. to manage and control certain family assets. Under the terms of his estate plan, substantially all of Constantine's assets ended up in the Trusts. During the administration of Constantine's estate, the Trusts consolidated the vast majority of those assets into CSTN, which were then managed by CSTN.

20. CSTN is governed by a Limited Partnership Agreement, originally executed on September 3, 1996, and amended on December 30, 1996, April 2, 2004, and April 11, 2006 (the "LPA"). Exhibit A. Originally, Constantine, Tassie, Vicky, and Steve served as both the general partners (Vicky and Steve, each individually, with only fractional general partner interests) and one class of limited partners. Kanaly, as Trustee of the Nicandros Inter Vivos Trust, was also originally a limited partner. After Constantine's death, Kanaly became a general partner as well, in its capacity as Trustee for the Nicandros Family Trust and Marital Trusts.

21. The LPA requires arbitration of disputes between partners.

Pt 1

Cause No. 533554

Vicky Nicandros Elliot

v.

Steve Constantine Nicandros;

National Advisors Trust Company;

Mercer Global Advisors, Inc.;

Kanaly Trust Company;

Kanaly Trust LTA; and

Andrew Kanaly

In Probate Court No.

of Harris County, Texas

NO SERV REC

Plaintiff's Original Petition

Parties

1. Plaintiff Vicky Nicandros Elliot is an individual residing in the State of Tennessee.

2. Defendant Steve Constantine Nicandros is an individual residing in Houston, Texas, who may be served at 414 Pineneedle Drive, Houston, Texas 77024, or wherever he may be found.

3. Defendant National Advisors Trust Company ("NATCO") is a Missouri trust company doing business in the State of Texas, which may be served by and through its officers at its headquarters at 800 E. 101st Terrace, Suite 300, Kansas City, Missouri 64131, or wherever it may be found.

4. Defendant Mercer Global Advisors, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. It may be served through its registered agent in Texas: National Registered Agents, Inc., 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136, or wherever it may be found.

5. Defendant Kanaly Trust Company is a Texas trust company that may be served at 5555 San Felipe Road, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77056, or wherever it may be found. It is unclear from available documents whether it survived a merger with Mercer and/or NATCO, so it is being joined here out of an abundance of caution.

6. Defendant Kanaly Trust, LTA (collectively, with Kanaly Trust Company, "Kanaly") is a Texas limited trust association that may be served at 5555 San Felipe Road, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77056, or wherever it may be found. It is unclear from available documents whether it survived a merger with Mercer and/or NATCO, so it is being joined here out of an abundance of caution.

7. Defendant Andrew D. Kanaly is an individual residing in Houston, Texas, who may be served c/o Mercer Advisors at 5555 San Felipe Street, Suite 200, Houston, Texas 77056, or wherever he may be found.

Venue & Jurisdiction

8. This action is within the jurisdiction of the statutory probate courts because it involves trusts and is against purported trustees.

9. Venue is mandatory in Harris County, Texas because this action involves trusts administered in Harris County. Tex.

10. Venue is also proper in Harris County because all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's causes of action occurred there and Defendants either resided in or had their principal Texas office in Harris County at the time the causes of action accrued.

11. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendants because they conduct business in Texas and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in Texas.

I will shortly be posting some information regarding potentially serious allegations made by Vicky Nicandros Elliot. Vicky is the sister of SN.

If you have previously held SN in high regard, then you may find some of the details disturbing. If your opinion of him is already low, this may unfortunately make that opinion sink even lower.

The information largely speaks for itself. That said, I know information like this can be heavy going for some, so afterwards I will also post an AI-generated summary that should flag the main points.

Deloitte is aware of the issue.

These remain allegations, not established facts. SN obviously has the right to respond and defend himself.

The Petition can be downloaded from the website address I will post with the Petition. The Petition on the court website is marked as an “unofficial copy”. This simply means it was downloaded from the court’s public records system.

Also, in addition to the long-running FIC case, there are newer, smaller claims for relatively modest sums. These can be found by searching the public records section on various Texas and Harris County court websites.

Chris572 - As the "comms chain" has already concluded I think that will likely remain the case.

Here you go WHamBoy - was published at the very end of the day Cayman time - https://www.gov.ky/publication-detail/2025-gazette-8

No mention of FRC

Phil_2018 — this will be my last comment on this thread. You often mention being a small shareholder, seemingly in the hope that someone else — a supposed larger or more qualified holders you sometimes refer to — will step in and take action on your behalf. That’s not a valid reason for you to do nothing, that is just an excuse you choose to rely on.

If you're comfortable suggesting a half-formed idea but not willing to take any ownership of it, then you shouldn’t be surprised when others push it back to you, especially when the response is constructive.

If you were capable of researching this stock, opening a trading account, and pressing “buy,” then sending a basic enquiry is well within your reach. If you believe in your idea, take the initiative. If you do get a response, I am sure people here would welcome you sharing it.

Phil_2018 - I have to say, that response feels a bit off the mark. I took the time (which no one else has yet done) to offer you some hopefully constructive suggestions and considerations. If this is something you genuinely want to pursue, then it’s only fair that you take the initiative. Even without a background in financial services or prior contact with Deloitte, there's nothing stopping you from putting together a clear, respectful enquiry just to see what kind of response you get. That is how most efforts like this begin.

Consistent with previous quarters -

https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/6301285f-0153-4cb9-be9f-ab09a714a23b/print/

Phil_2018 — I am sure you’ll agree that Deloitte operates in a highly structured and professional manner, so any proposal would need to reflect that.

In your outline, you reference shareholders, but Deloitte’s primary obligation is to the creditors of FRC. Any proposal must demonstrate how it serves the interests of creditors first, with any potential benefit to shareholders being secondary consequence. That is how you would have to sell it.

You also need to outline a credible organisational and financial structure that makes your proposal workable. Since you have referenced Cayman, Texas, and Georgia, you might need to account for the legal and regulatory frameworks of those jurisdictions.

On top of that, and if you get that far, any proposal would need to succeed where other interested parties have not, including Outrider, by providing both the financial capacity and technical credibility to deliver a plan acceptable to the relevant state agencies so they will engage.

You will also need to consider that SN is a creditor. If he is indeed waiting in the wings, as some have suggested, your proposal will need to anticipate and address potential objections from him or any other creditor aligned with him.

Phil, I doubt anyone is going to pick this up and run with it on your behalf, but if you think it worth a shot then obviously you should take it on yourself.

Cazbraz - thanks for the message which is much appreciated.

Just to clarify, I have only ever shared a portion of my interactions here, and at no point have I felt strung along by anyone. I think everything I’ve been told (and what I have shared here) has ultimately been verified in one way or another over time — either through events or via independent third-party reporting.

If you’re referring specifically to the closure of the “comms chain,” then yes, that was unfortunate but, ultimately, it was a mutual decision by all involved. Though in truth Deloitte hardly presented any alternative. Sharing information in a public space always carries the risk of unintended consequences, so I always tried to post with that risk in mind.

I have aimed to try and remain objective and constructive throughout, even when things have been frustrating and I willl continue to do so as this process plays out.

Phil_2018 – I am not really sure what you are suggesting other than ask Deloitte to pass the data to shareholders. Perhaps you can bullet point your proposal so people can understand what you are saying.

Just my opinion but I don’t believe the data exists in the form you think it does. I base that on the Deloitte first report, comments by the GOGC around the MoU and earlier case filings in the ZM trial (in essence, “we gave everything to the state agencies for safe keeping”). Even if the data does exist, it’s been assigned nil value, and no one has expressed interest in acquiring it. The only asset with post-PSC interest was the $21M charge against ZM as detailed in the last statement by Deloitte.

Lifeishard - thanks and understood.