Member Info for Looed

Keyser - As I mentioned in my response to Lifeishard, there are likely several reasons why Deloitte might have devalued the significance of the data. Regarding FRUS specifically, remember that the state agencies assigned all rights and obligations for the developed lands to FRUS, subject to specific terms and conditions. Unfortunately, as Deloitte explained, FRUS did not meet those conditions, which led to the current tender for the entirety of Block 12.

At this point, we don’t yet know whether any offers were made for all or part of the Block, nor do we know why Article 274—the catch-all cancellation or suspension clause—was invoked at this stage of the process. The ongoing political stalemate in the country adds further complexity to an already uncertain situation.

Lifeishard – I haven’t had any direct updates about the bid process, as it remains confidential under the terms set by the SAOG. Any public announcements, like the one made today, are entirely within their authority. Even if I had additional details, it would be inappropriate to share sensitive information without permission and outside of the proper SAOG process.

The clause the SAOG have used to terminate the current process is a standard provision that allows them flexibility to make decisions without providing detailed explanations. While this may seem frustrating, it’s not unusual and could simply be a procedural step.

I will let you know if I find more information on the reason this clause was invoked.

With regard to data etc. - I do think this has been discussed many, many times. Deloitte stated that the company had no assets and there are many reasons why the data, even if it was still in the hands of the company, has little to no value. Also remember that SN stated they gave the block back (the "1%") to the GOGC and since then the state agencies have been operating some of the developed area themselves.

Lifeishard - On 6 November 2024, I shared links to the contact points so that anyone interested in Block 12 could obtain their own copy of the tender package. This package outlines the sequence of events that will unfold starting Monday, 27 January.

On Monday, 27 January, the Bid Opening Ceremony will take place. During this event, any submitted bids will be opened, and certain key information from the proposals—such as the signing bonus and the area claimed—will be publicly declared.

If there is more than one bid, or if specific thresholds outlined in the tender package are not met, the process will move to a closed-door evaluation phase. This phase, also detailed in the tender documentation, will determine which bidder is ultimately awarded the tender.

Thanks WHamBoy - It is likely more cost-effective for Deloitte to allow the cases involving FRC to remain open and naturally conclude as they are docketed, rather than incurring the time and expense of filing motions to dismiss them—particularly if the opposing parties are already recognized as official creditors in the liquidation process.

These court cases rumble on because they exist in separate legal realms and docket dates remain unaffected as that is when the court will address whatever issue is presented to it. But these cases essentially only exist on paper.

For example, on the docket for today, 20th Jan 2025 was a hearing for Trial oil Merits in FRC v YA II. Had I just posted that info then people might think this is new and something is afoot else why have a hearing? But the context is that the date for hearing the Motion was set 8th Jan 2024 and the only action that has taken place since the court set the date is FRC advising the court it was subject to liquidation proceedings.

Until a formal motion to stay or dismiss is filed and granted, cases continue to follow standard / routine legal processes.

If YA is already an official creditor, its claim is already on the record.

WHamBoy - thanks.

Another way to think about it is that civil courts in a Texas county and liquation events operate in separate orbits and to their own timelines. This event in Jefferson didn't suddenly happen because of events in the liquation. It happened because it was docketed to take place at that particular time.

Bezzy / WHamBoy - this is a small claims case that was lodged, and FRC was served, early in 2024. There was little to no action on the case until November 2024 when Plaintiff filed for Summary Judgment and the hearing date for that Motion was set. Also in November, FRC (via Deloitte) advised the court that FRC was being wound down. The case status shows as "Disposed" meaning it is no longer active on the court schedule and the case is effectively closed.

Lifeishard - specific to personal monies, Bidzina was expecting a large payout from Credit Suisse -

https://www.straitstimes.com/business/credit-suisse-unit-ordered-to-pay-georgian-tycoon-ivanishvili-us743m

It is now possible the bank (now owned by UBS) can withhold or delay payment, regardless of the success or failure of any further litigation in the matter, by stating the individual is sanctioned by the US and to avoid itself being sanctioned by association, especially as UBS has a significant presence in the USA.

Lifeishard - no problem.

Lifeishard - Lobbying efforts are generally carried out by third parties acting on behalf of a company or entity of interest, rather than directly by the company or entity itself.

If third parties make lobbying payments on behalf of a company that is subject to legal proceedings, including liquidation, these payments are independent and not subject to the control or oversight of the appointed administrators or liquidators. Their responsibilities are focused on managing the company’s assets and liabilities, while lobbying activities operate separately.

Https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/4fc70a8b-ac7c-4ee8-aec6-f0f99ca311cf/print/

I saw someone reference the website. I wouldn’t interpret the continued presence of the frontera-resources.com website as a definitive “sign of life” for the company. The website is under Deloitte’s control as part of the liquidation process and was “locked” around the time of their February 2024 statement regarding the company. This is a standard procedure in liquidations, as brand names, logos, and related intellectual property are considered potential assets that may hold value for creditors or buyers.

Additionally, the San Felipe address listed on the website was vacated in early 2024.

Https://www.state.gov/sanctioning-georgian-dream-founder-bidzina-ivanishvili/

Wadassistant - I will share any developments as soon as they become available, so there’s no need to keep asking me for updates. Meanwhile, WHamBoy, Ziggy, and others are actively monitoring updates from the Cayman registers, Lifeishard is providing news updates from the Georgian press and many others continue to seek out information. Also, Deloitte has clearly outlined their communication process. Rest assured, there are multiple eyes closely following developments.

WHamBoy - thanks for checking.

Wadassistant - I refer you to my earlier replies which will avoid the need for repetition.

Wadassistant -the "hang around" message has been clearly explained. I was asked a few days ago when that message was received, to which I responded. My earlier reply reflects the current situation regarding that message. I believe this clarifies the matter.

Wadassistant / lifeishard – Thanks for clarifying the significance of 16/12. While emotions undoubtedly play a role when deciding to press "buy" and follow a share, they become irrelevant when engaging (or trying to) with a corporate entity. AIM is littered with examples where investors express frustration over placements, consolidations, poor communication, or warrant issues. Yet, these entities persist with their strategies, largely unaffected.

John Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, observed that "many companies see private investors primarily as participants in a secondary market, disconnected from the operational and strategic challenges of running the business." This perspective underlines how I approach attempts to engage with such entities—emotions seldom make an impact.

As for the message of "hanging around," it’s true that no substantial evidence has emerged to either confirm or refute that position. For now, we wait for tangible developments to clarify the situation.

"Claiming Capital Losses in the UK:

Qualifying Conditions:

You can claim a capital loss if your shares have become worthless. This is known as a negligible value claim. To qualify:

The shares must be formally recognized as having negligible value.

You must have owned the shares during the relevant tax year.

Negligible Value Claims:

If the company is still in existence but the shares have no market value, you can claim they became worthless in a specific tax year. HMRC has a list of companies they consider to have negligible value, but you can also provide evidence for companies not listed.

You must submit this claim in your Self Assessment tax return or by writing to HMRC with details of the shares, the company, and the date you believe they became worthless.

Liquidation:

If the company has been liquidated, any distribution received is treated as part of a capital gains calculation. If no distribution is made, you may claim a capital loss as the investment is considered lost.

The loss is generally recognized in the tax year when the liquidation is finalized.

Offsetting and Reporting:

Capital losses can be used to offset capital gains in the same tax year. Any unused losses can be carried forward to future years but must be reported to HMRC.

Use HMRC's Self Assessment tax return to report the losses or submit a letter if you're not required to file a tax return.

Supporting Evidence:

Keep all relevant documents, such as purchase records, correspondence about liquidation, and any negligible value notices from HMRC.

Action Plan:

Confirm the Company’s Status:

Check if the company has been liquidated or is on HMRC's negligible value list.

Gather Documentation:

Collect purchase records, liquidation notices, or any evidence proving the worthlessness of the shares.

Make a Claim:

Include the details in your Self Assessment tax return or write to HMRC.

Resources:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/negligible-value-agreements

Consulting with a tax advisor can help ensure that you properly document and maximize your claim."

(Source - OpenAI)

Wadassistant – I’m not entirely sure what the significance of 16 December is, but I believe attributing emotions or feelings to any corporate entity is ultimately unproductive. For example, while it’s natural to hope for the company to make a comeback and achieve a relisting, emotions or personal hopes have no bearing on the statistical likelihood of such an outcome. Historically, very few companies manage to relist successfully, except in cases of technical delistings for short periods. Of course, it’s not impossible—but statistically speaking, the odds are slim. That doesn’t even begin to take into account the legal and financial challenges that have been reported on here.

The concept of keeping quiet to keep the peace is a well studied phenomena that can be understood through the concepts of “diffusion of responsibility” and the “bystander effect”. You can ask AI to provide specific examples of how these apply to shareholder behavior and corporate governance.

I view this situation more as an academic exercise and a valuable learning experience. If I attach any emotion to it, it’s the satisfaction of having played a small role in equipping the team with tools to try and improve the situation. Whether they succeed or fail in capitalizing on those tools is ultimately beyond my control.