Member Info for Looed

I’ve received a further update from Deloitte. The liquidation of FRC remains unchanged and is now described as being “at its conclusion,” with final formalities expected to be completed shortly.

Deloitte confirmed that FRUS is a wholly owned subsidiary of FRC, but operates independently with its own “governance, board, and control”. As such, FRUS is being treated as a separate legal entity and is not directly impacted by FRC’s liquidation.

Deloitte confirmed that FRUS is technically a debtor to FRC, presumably relating to operational costs or the proposed assignment. However Deloitte has assessed that the debt has “no recoverable value” as FRUS itself holds no assets. Therefore, they have concluded it is not worth pursuing the debt as it would not benefit the liquidation process.

The FRC share register remains in Deloitte’s possession, and they have stated that a final update will be posted on their FRC page once all formalities are complete.

Cazbraz you can try this link - https://particip.gov.md/ro/document/stages/anunt-de-initiere-privind-elaborarea-proiectului-hotararii-de-guvern-cu-privire-la-incetarea-dreptului-de-desfasurare-a-lucrarilor-de-explorare-geologica-a-hidrocarburilor-pe-teritoriul-republicii-moldova-cu-ulterioara-lor-exploatare/14069

If the link isn't clickable here then try cutting-and-pasting it in a new window.

Not sure why the first link has been censored but they are both Facebook links

a moldovan politician has posted about frontera and has had his post picked up and reposted, as you can see in the following links -

https://www.********************republicamoldova/posts/3443111705823277/ &

https://www.facebook.com/radarpolitic/posts/%ef%b8%8f-igor-munteanu-cub-unde-i-frontera-resources-sau-cine-gestioneaz��-resursele-nat/1213612057433319/

Keyser - there is no court date yet. As per the last Deloitte statement, "The Liquidators expect to file the Dissolution Application in March 2025. A further update will be published once the application is filed." The court can only set its schedule once any application is filed.

and as I posted on 8th March,

"In my message from Deloitte that I posted earlier, they mention an "administrative dissolution" but also reference a court hearing. What they mean is that they will petition the court to dissolve the company without requiring a formal hearing, which typically allows the court to process it quickly. However, if any of the creditors lodge an objection, a hearing will be necessary, which could delay the process."

Moldova - the March date signals the end of the public consultation period after which I guess the draft law is revised and then it proceeds to the next stage of the formal review process.

Pursuing a claim against ZM would require new evidence to support the case — you cannot relitigate matters that have already been decided.

Recovering funds from ZM would also mean proving that he has undisclosed assets and that there is a realistic path to enforcement. Even if successful, any award would likely be subordinate to the existing $21M judgment (as well as any additional fines imposed by courts in Georgia etc.), which creditors have so far been unable to enforce. If new assets were uncovered, creditors would have the first claim, leaving little or nothing for shareholders given their lower priority in the liquidation process.

The idea that an unknown group of “large shareholders” will step in is highly unlikely. If any major shareholder had intended to take action, they probably would have already done so privately and in their own interests.

Previously, I referenced other shareholder groups that have pursued legal action. If you have an interest in exploring options, rather than rely only on opinion here it would be better if you contacted their legal counsel for a free consultation to better understand the legal position.

Njames - I didn’t mention the issue at the time because I don’t believe it was done with any ill intent. The person may have thought they were simply making a routine inquiry to Deloitte, but from Deloitte’s perspective, it was seen as a report of misconduct by former officers. Since only Deloitte is authorized to speak on behalf of the company, they made it very clear that external discussions by those parties were highly inappropriate.

In my message from Deloitte that I posted earlier, they mention an "administrative dissolution" but also reference a court hearing. What they mean is that they will petition the court to dissolve the company without requiring a formal hearing, which typically allows the court to process it quickly. However, if any creditor lodges an objection, a hearing will be necessary, which could delay the process.

WHamBoy - Due to an event that took place around September last year, a decision was made to discontinue what I previously referred to as the "comms chain". Deloitte made it clear that they alone are authorized to speak on behalf of the company.

Thanks WHamBoy, I have been in discussions with Deloitte and I got a slight variation on the official statement -

"Has a motion for dissolution been filed?

The Liquidators intended on filing the dissolution application in October 2024, however a creditor expressed an interest in potentially providing funding to pursue the enforcement of a judgment and arbitration award granted in favour of the Company against a former executive. As a consequence, the Liquidators delayed making the dissolution application to allow the creditor time to review the matter and decide on funding. On 4 March 2025, the creditor informed the Liquidators, that after review, it has elected not to provide funding. As a result, the Liquidators will now proceed with the dissolution application.

If so, will a hearing be scheduled, or will the matter be dealt with administratively?

A hearing has not been scheduled as the dissolution application has not been made by the Liquidators. At the time of making the dissolution application, the Liquidators will request that the hearing be dealt with administratively. The Liquidators expect to make the application in March 2025. We cannot estimate when a hearing will be scheduled by the Court and/or when the dissolution order might be made.

Is there a general timeline for completing the liquidation?

Once the dissolution application has been made conclusion of the liquidation will be dependent on the Court’s timeline, and whether any creditors intend on appearing at the hearing. As mentioned above we cannot estimate when the hearing will be schedule and/or when the dissolution order is made."

It is a draft decision, the "consultation" period runs from 5-17th March. This is from one of the sub-links in the page that Chris shared -

"In accordance with the provisions of Law No. 239/2008 on Transparency in the Decision-Making Process, the Ministry of Environment announces the initiation, starting from March 5, 2025, of the development of the draft Government Decision regarding the termination of the right to conduct geological exploration of hydrocarbons in the territory of the Republic of Moldova, with their subsequent exploitation....until March 17, 2025"

Chris - thanks for sharing. I believe this is a draft decision, not yet law. For example, the draft has no Decree / 'Dection' number nor is it dated.

Montiburns - Regarding Moldova, while the concession covers a significant portion of land, land area alone does not determine commercial value. With no development, no proven reserves, and no activity (as you point out), the concession holds little to no tangible value from a liquidator’s perspective.

Despite Moldova’s ongoing critical energy challenges, there is no indication that FRC or any other company is stepping in to fill the gap. So I think for the liquidator it represents more of a theoretical opportunity rather than a realizable asset.

WhamBoy - thanks for checking.

I meant to add that with regard to the "Griffin / NYC" case (if that is the case you are referring to), the court in NYC was advised in Aug 2022 that plaintiffs would proceed based on events / outcome of the FIC case.

Montiburns – If you refer to the Deloitte report, the org chart on page 8 shows that FRI is a subsidiary of the parent company. The same page also states:

"One subsidiary, FIC, was placed in Official Liquidation in 2020. The joint official liquidators of FIC have advised the liquidators that there is no anticipated return to its shareholders (i.e., the Company)." With the company obviously being FRC.

This likely explains why the report refers to the Georgian PSC as the 'Principal Asset' rather than the 'only asset.' While the report acknowledges the existence of other subsidiaries, it is clear that the Georgian PSC was the only asset of any real significance.

Also, the difference between a PSC (Georgia) and a Concession (Moldova) may further explain why, within the parameters Deloitte is operating under, the Moldovan Concession holds no realizable value. Given the lack of investment or operational history in Moldova, Deloitte may have decided that the concession was effectively irrelevant to the liquidation process.

Thanks Chris572 for sharing. Those opinions, along with the unfulfilled signing requirements, likely explain why Moldova was not mentioned in the Deloitte report.

Thanks cazbraz, much appreciated.

Chris572 – Apologies if my post came across as hinting at something as that was not my intent. There are no hidden implications, the post was just meant to be an explanation of how the process typically unfolds under Cayman law.

Yesterday, I mentioned that "I will continue to do my best to explain processes, as I know they can be bewildering to some, and share any news I find, good or bad, via verifiable third parties." As I posted earlier today, only Deloitte can speak for the company.

So, to be clear—no hints, no speculation, just a commentary on the process.

Just to explain why it is important to monitor both Deloitte and Cayman -

As the company is under court supervision only the Grand Court has the authority to make decisions regarding its status —whether positive, negative, or otherwise.

Deloitte is the only party authorized to speak on behalf of the company.

Whilst Deloitte is responsible for managing the ‘day-to-day’, any major proposals — whether to proceed with dissolution or consider alternative actions — must be formally submitted by Deloitte to the Court, which will then approve or reject.

Typically, the Grand Court will issue decisions first (Gazette), followed by an update from Deloitte. However, it is best to monitor both sources, as Deloitte may provide an update before any court ruling is made.

The timescale is ultimately decided by Deloitte / Grand Court, so best to monitor the Deloitte website, Gazettes etc. for any announcements.