Member Info for Looed

From StarRage post 20th May -

"Would be a whole lot easier if B20 could just quit with the cryptic notes and post something with supporting evidence, but that is certainly not their MO to date."

PJohn - its like you purposefully choose to misread what is written. The wink referred to the comment to you in brackets. Star has also made clear he wants B-2-0 to clarify his statements. But then you seem to pretend you can't remember what was written 1 or 2 days ago. Endlessly getting people to repost whats already out there.

And please read my posting history. Post upon post imploring B-2-0 to share what he knows. More than you have done.

I want you, Mole wants you, tsbs1 wants you, there are others that want you. PJohn most definitely wants you.

It's time to stop soaring and start talking.

And if you are connected, why aren't we seeing "GOGC position undermined by OOCS deal with FRR" type articles ?
That would help a lot.

(See PJohn, I can be just as desperate as you ;-) which is a winking eye emoji, same as StarRage used earlier. It means a comment made in a jovial, non-serious manner. So your whole unravelling has been based on a mis-read of his post)

Seingred - don't worry about the missing posts. PJ has bought the exclusive rights to B-2-0s pronouncements and is about to publish "The Profoundly Positive Thoughts Of Chairman B-2-0" a sort of chicken soup for the soul / men are from Mars, black swans are from Georgia type mash-up. It's going to be a "Swans are soaring, rhinos are rising, lords are leaping" sort of thing. As a negative fake shareholder presumably I am pre-programmed to hate it.

Petulant John - the thoughts of B-2-0 with his confident swagger, his mighty swooching sword and his love of birdwatching could make him an intriguing addition to the tryst you are proposing. After all, he seems to have no interest in you despite your CAPS LETTER courting of him.

No - not Happy Face! Check again.

I should have said GOGC FB page.

Mr Kinzinger is the politician that appeared on the GOGC website a couple of days ago talking about the FRR case

Source - https://agenda.ge/en/news/2020/1612

And this is Mole commenting on the arbitration split (as posted earlier to PJohn) -

Thanks for that Looed that to me indicates the transfer to FRR US in April 2019 was also disputed at the time in !ate April by GG they wanted prove that FRR US has required skills and funds to fulfill the contrac. FRR at that time had not returned their pack with their response to the registry request until June. So your post below covers a part where the transfer was still being disputed. GG then terminated the registration process hence its gone to arbitration as well to test section 27 of the PSA as it involves the PSA and was also in dispute. On that there is a fair chance FRR would win that at arbitration.
But the timing is very interesting and does again beg the question what role Outrider and Hope have been playing here in this saga. If the transfer was ruled on in the arbitration then that would make sense not to want to publish!

Again not seeing anything in that which would point to anything other than the transfer was to FRR US. That the transfer could be ruled void by arbitration is interesting. As then the contract would be with FIT. Did FIT only initiate liquidation when that part of the arbitration was resolved or known? Or is it still moot in which case they could be on the hook for the outcome of the arbitration another reason to liquidate.
So yes doesn't change my impression that FRR is relying on some goodwill to retain 1% post arbitration hence the political dimension. It seems clear they could have settled in Q4 2019 but for reasons we are still not sure it fell through. Leaving us where we are today with the click ticking to July.

Two posts from Mole-
I can't believe I'm spending time again on this company! Its compelling/addictive/frustrating. Lets go from the top.
Frontera Resources - The Group company is where we hold our now delisted shares.
The loan notes were issued by another Cayman company Frontera International. They mortgaged the shares in Frontera Caucasus Corporation as a security.
The PSA is held in an operating company FEGL joint owned and registered in Georgia 50/50 with GOGC. That company holds the exclusive mineral license. Frontera held the shares in that company under Frontera Resources Georgia a cayman company. Those shares were in turn held by Frontera Resources Caucasus Corporation a cayman company. All these companies were therefore wholly owned subsidiaries of the Group company.

Outrider forced FRR to lose control of Frontera Resources Caucasus Corporation by enforcing security on the mortgage. Just before that happened FRR moved the interest in the operating company FEGL held by Frontera Georgia to FRR US (a US registered company). I think that transfer can be done under section 27.3 of the PSA without GG approval as they are an affiliated company with >50% ownership.

That is the transfer FIT think could have breached covenants in the mortgage. I am guessing they are liquidating whats left of Frontera Resources caucasus corporation. At the same time in Dec 2018 Steve and Zaza pledged shares in the group in case FRR failed to pay the interest in Sept 2018 as a result of amending the notes in Jan 2018.

So as at mid 2019. The shares in the operating company FEGL with the PSA were with FRR (US). Steve and Zaza had not delivered the shares they pledged hence the Texas litigation while the fiduciary in California rumbled on.
Over that period Green seems to have invested a sum with a security on operating assets. That could be the block 12 PSA or a profit share on say a well - we simply do not know the amount or the terms of that transaction).

The arbitration carried on with GG seeking to get back the 99% not subject to development plans. The bit I can't fathom is what an OOCS settlement might be and who it might involve. That is what I want to know about. I've not seen anything yet that supports that. But if the GG comments mean what they say they intend to cancel the PSA and I would read that as 100% of block 12 until I see evidence to the contrary. That would leave FRR US holding worthless shares as its only asset is the shares in the operating company.

Its speculated there may have been a further transfer. Who says there is an out of course settlement and how do they know this? Link please so I can investigate. The Batumi article doesn't support that. So is it Zaza comments in press?

PJohn -

You ask "when was the arbitration dealing with the asset move"

As posted - and discussed in great detail a few days ago - "On April 24, 2019, the Contractor notified the Arbitration Tribunal of its rights and obligations under the Contract, including the transfer of a fraudulent claim to an Affiliated Company.
The Corporation and the Agency did not declare the "transfer" validity and objected to the contractor's claim that the "transfer" did not comply with the "contract" requirements.
In view of the above, the arbitral tribunal decided on 7 June 2019 to separate the dispute over the validity of the transfer into a separate proceeding. The arbitration proceeding was divided into two independent lines - one dealing with the corporate and agency claims, and the other dealing with "transfer" liability and contractual claims.
However, the arbitration hearings, scheduled for October 1-11, 2019, would be devoted to the corporate and agency lawsuit claims and the issue of "transfer" validity, and the arbitration tribunal would determine the timing of the litigation claims.
On September 1, 2019, and several times thereafter, the Contractor applied to the Arbitration Tribunal seeking suspension and / or termination of the Arbitration Proceedings on the ground that it had allegedly reached an agreement with the Government of Georgia to settle the dispute. Contractor's claims were not satisfied by the Arbitration Tribunal;" which was followed by the GOGC statement that the Award found the asset move illegal."

You say "how do you know there is no deal or OOCS" - to date, there is no evidence that supports this. Which is why we keep asking the person making this claim to prove it.

Last Wednesday Mole (and others) have posted extensively on the company structure, etc. I find it puzzling that you are asking questions about topics that have been discussed ad nauseum over the past few days. If you are directing your "you just look at the negatives blah blah blah" at me I can assure you that is not the case.

If your version of what is evidence is based on the words of a poster because he is confident, that is entirely up to you, especially if what he says turns out to be true. I also hope you can stand back for a minute and see how dangerous it can be to pin your hopes on the minimal postings of a single poster, especially if it is possible that poster turns out to be the equivalent of a snake oil salesman.

PJohn - as StarRage reminded us a day or so ago -

"The Arbitration Tribunal also ruled that Frontera’s attempt to transfer the contract to its affiliated company (Frontera US) was illegal."

https://www.gogc.ge/en/article/-frontera-refuses-to-disclose-the-arbitration-tribunal-award-and-keeps-spreading-false-information/481

And so we wait again. I will get a pot of coffee on and rearrange the magazines here in our virtual waiting room!

StarRage - I think PJohns last comment was in reply to your last post.

(PJohn - its StarRage who mentioned the debt issue)

PJohn - there is no evidence this 30-day process has been triggered, but its almost the only option open when an Award is in dispute. With both sides claiming victory you would think at least one of them would ask for a re-stating of the award that was clearer and if possible avoids sensitive material so it can be released. But -

1- We don't know that the Award is clear or unclear
2- We assume logic and common sense when none seems evident!

StarRage - Lets say I took you to Arbitration and the court Awarded that "StarRage, your purple hair colour is an affront to decency. You are so ordered to return your hair colour to the one before" You can go back and ask them to reissue the Award but to clarify which previous colour as you change it frequently, and by what date the colour must be changed - but the purple hair still has to go. The Award still stands - see what I mean?

Hold on, this is from the Stockholm Board website -

Article 47 Correction and interpretation of an award

(1) Within 30 days of receiving an award, a party may, upon
notice to the other party, request that the Arbitral Tribunal correct any clerical, typographical or computational errors in the award, or provide an interpretation of a specific point or part of the award. After giving the other party an opportunity to comment on the request, and if the Arbitral Tribunal considers the request justified, it shall make the correction or provide the interpretation within 30 days of receiving the request.
(2) The Arbitral Tribunal may correct any error of the type referred to in paragraph (1) above on its own motion within 30 days of the date of an award.
(3) Anycorrectionorinterpretationofanawardshallbeinwri- ting and shall comply with the requirements of Article 42.
Article 48 Additional award
Within 30 days of receiving an award, a party may, upon notice to the other party, request that the Arbitral Tribunal make an additional award on claims presented in the arbitration but not determined in the award. After giving the other party an op- portunity to comment on the request, and if the Arbitral Tribu- nal considers the request justified, it shall make the additional award within 60 days of receiving the request. When deemed necessary, the Board may extend this 60 day time limit.
https://sccinstitute.com/media/293614/arbitration_rules_eng_17_web.pdf

The Award was given 17th April, which is why I said the 30 day window has expired, and we are now in the second phase - it it has been triggered by either side. Hope this helps

Pt.2
Another view - also cherrypicked -
"Is there any legal recourse when signatory states fail to implement the Convention?
The merits and usefulness of the New York Convention are clear and significant. Precisely because of the importance of the Convention for fostering cross-border business transactions and investment, the lack of monitoring of the Convention’s implementation is regretable. In other words, there is no international body that actively verifies whether all the signatory countries (and their courts) are fully in compliance with the Convention and the commitments made therewith. There are examples of countries whose courts refuse to enforce valid foreign arbitral awards, often on dubious grounds, although these countries have signed and ratified the New York Convention.....In other cases, judges may have a sort of protectionist or nationalistic bias and would choose to ignore the Convention or interpret it in a very narrow way, to favor the local party and refuse to enforce an award that was rendered against a local firm. This latter risk is even more pronounced when the local firm that is party to the contract is a state-owned enterprise (SOE). A local judge may then see it as their “national duty” to protect the local SOE, an asset or agent of the state, against foreign arbitrators and the foreign company with which the SOE has had a dispute."
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/726311577800894244/pdf/How-Countries-can-Fully-Implement-the-New-York-Convention-A-Critical-Tool-for-Enforcement-of-International-Arbitration-Decisions.pdf
Note - The New York Convention is another term for UNCITRAL.

In various GOGC statements they keep referring to this as a purely "commercial matter". At first I thought that was just an obvious statement, but that term is a crucial part of the Arbitration process -
(States)..."that they only enforce arbitral awards arising out of disputes over commercial matters under the New York Convention. For this reason, it is equally relevant to the practical enforceability of MIC decisions under the New York Convention to identify which cases are considered to concern “commercial matters.....An enforcement according to the New York Convention would be legally conceivable; nevertheless, successful enforcement depends on the perspective of the specific national court having jurisdiction over enforcement. This can lead to divergent results, depending on the legal system."
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-59732-3_7

The GOGC focus on the commercial dispute aspect. Zaza is claiming FRR won, dragging in politics, CV-19, US interests. We need to see how FRR have won the commercial dispute. The more noise he is making, the less we are able to see the facts on why FRR can legitimately claim to have a win here. he won't share the Award due to "sensitive info", so I don't know how he can prove FRR have prevailed.

Pt.1

StarRage and others have mentioned the likelihood of more court action. It sounds a plausible theory given the stark apparent differences . I have tried to find any instances of what happens when sides don't agree, sadly not much out there.

There is no mechanism to overturn the Award (though both sides seem "happy" with their own interpretation of the award). There is a 30 day window (since expired) where either side can seek a clarification or removal of an ambiguity to the Award. If such a request has been made we are now in the 30 day review and publish period. The chances of annulment is slight. They can only apply based on procedural grounds, not on how the Award is interpreted.

Any challenge must be in Sweden - "The decision to vacate arbitral awards issued under UNCITRAL rules lies with the domestic court in the place of arbitration."
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/international-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2019/06/GT-GJIL190015.pdf

I did find one article that has the following cherrypicked comments -
"You may have won the substantive hearing and secured your client a substantial arbitral award, but if the opposing party refuses to honour the award, the fight is not yet over. Unless an award is complied with or enforced, it has only limited reputational value......in many countries, arbitration is the only effective recourse a foreign investor may have against the state, so a reputation for non-compliance with awards can affect inward foreign investment......unlike court judgments, arbitral awards benefit from a number of international treaties providing effective and robust methods of enforcement"
https://www.kwm.com/en/knowledge/insights/enforcing-arbitration-awards-the-how-the-why-and-latest-developments-20160915

And

"While parties who have lost an arbitration and consider that the tribunal misjudged the facts, or the law may be frustrated that an award cannot be challenged as easily as a court judgment could be appealed, systemically this frustration is outweighed by the benefit and attractiveness of an international arbitration award being final, at least in most cases. So long as that finality is protected by national courts, it will continue to be an important reason for parties to continue to choose arbitration as their preferred dispute resolution mechanism."
https://globalarbitrationreview.com/chapter/1178486/awards-challenges

Wouldn't be the first time google translate made a mistake !

I saw a post yesterday accusing Mole of "more or less telling everyone its over" (and Mole has repeatedly stated the situation regarding comms as have FSHG). I think part of this is his / mine and others questioning of B-2-0. It's not one view versus the other. Think of this as a court case (I know, not another one!) where Mole and B-2-0 are a part of a revolving band of counsel. B-2-0 states his position but is unable to support with hard evidence - he still might and hope he does soon. For some, his claims, ands Zaza's position regarding the award is good enough evidence that things will work out.

Mole works in a different way and has presented his case supported by a forensic examination of the documents available, company structure, PSA etc. He doesn't have all the evidence, much remains unknown - but he can present a credible theory that can be supported by real evidence. I don't think anyone would accuse Mole of cherry picking info to support a position.

We can hope the termination is a bluff (it might well be, many have posted plausible ideas why this might be a bluff) but the evidence supports the fact that GOGC have terminated the PSA. Moles view on the implications of this is based on the paper trail with the PSA and he has been the first to admit much might be going on behind closed doors.

Its not that Mole is right / wrong or that B-2-0 is right / wrong. But evidence is important (IMHO) and for that reason as of now I think Mole has the better case because I want to follow evidence, not the noise. I don't discount the noise, i just want something solid to back it up. We should be able to accept the evidence the paper trail shows us AND be open to the possibility that more things are yet to be revealed.

At no point has Mole said B-2-0 is wrong, he even messaged him ( as have others) eager to discover more about what he claims to know.

I prefer to see Moles position as worst case scenario, as well as hope that things can turn out better. Zaza is obviously not giving up just yet. But we would be more assured if we had some evidence to this to support the current situation. The truth might sometimes be unpalatable - but it is still the truth. I hope we can be open to all ideas but not be closed to accepting some of those ideas might not be quite the ones we want.

Here endeth the sermon. I will pass the plate round now.