Member Info for Looed

OSC = Order to Show Cause

WHamBoy – I think you have asked and answered your own question when you say, “I remember you and others suggested that this Frontera liquidation was complicated and that broadly speaking, if it takes a long time, that is probably/possibly an indication that a deal is being thrashed out.”

I am sure if I / others found evidence or received information from any source that showed that no longer to be the case we would have already said so.

Outside of that, news should come to you and all stakeholders when Deloitte circulate their final report before they present it to the court for approval.

Outside of that, September should see some movement in a couple of the cases still on the docket, so that might tell us something.

Monti - thanks for your comments. I don't recall any corporate guarrantees being mentioned specific to this case, just the personal ones.

I hit send too soon,

I wanted to end by saying the reason we follow this case is because it is long running litigation, it involves SN, it relates to Hope, and it is an ongoing drag - time and money wise - to have to maintain counsel etc. as the case crawls along that could be better spent elsewhere. I think the court are wondering what exactly have these liquidators been doing all this time which might explain the Jan 2025 deadlines.

Lifeishard - FIC is in the control of the liquidators and it is the liquidators that are suing SN & ZM to force them to pay money and settle debts. They are trying to do this because, amongst other things, both SN & ZM gave personal guarantees to settle up. You can think of it as the liquidators are suing SN, ZM in a personal capacity and so there is no direct connection to any party outside of those two individuals.

If this case had a direct bearing on the MoU then in all likelihood there never would have been an MoU. You can argue that this case could affect the MoU indirectly. For example, had they gone to court today and got a win, that might have financial repercussions for SN that could affect his ability to fund other projects.

The revised trial date in this case remains October 2025. Recently, the court rejected FIC's proposed schedule for Discovery, Pleadings etc., which FIC wanted to complete by August 2025. The court has now imposed its own docketing schedule and orders that Discovery and Pleadings be completed by January 2025. While the court has accepted the revised and unopposed Oct 2025 trial date, it also appears that the court needs FIC to show, and show relatively quickly, that they can actually deliver something to justify the extended trial date.

Hi Lifeishard – I will join chris572 in thanking you for sharing. Specific to Frontera, I don’t think October has any bearing on the situation at hand. The GG have had multiple opportunities to cut ties (Arbitration, the ZM saga and so on) but have instead done the opposite and offered a pathway back to operations. That is partly due to politics, to lobbying, but also the long-standing relationships between the prevailing parties that resulted in the MoU. Add to that the decision to extend deadlines to support the efforts to complete the agreement as detailed in the GOGC accounts.

We do not know if these extensions remain in place but nor have we seen any evidence to say that they do not. All the more reason to keep digging for information. If there were no extensions post 31/03 then in all likelihood Deloitte would have already circulated its Final Report and asked the court to rule so they can get these proceedings, and us, off their books.

In this instance the OSC (Order to Show Cause) has been issued by the court and it puts the burden on the liquidator to show cause to persuade the judge to keep the case on the docket. Liquidators must submit any written opposition to the closing of the case by 4th September for the con-call hearing on 10th September.

Hi Monti - the only note I would add is that in addition to the $5-6m award costs there is also the financing for "significant investment in the short and medium term" that they need to have kept available.

Cheers toatie, I pity them but as you say, only one thing to do with the trash. Have a good day mate.

Spicy – thanks to you and jv123 for providing some much-needed light relief to the BB. But is that the best you can do? Less spicy sausage more a limp chipolata. I still chuckle over your claim that I am paid by the company. Imagine that - the company willingly handing over cash to someone! I am good, very good indeed but miracle worker I am not.

Jv123 – I said, “A pity you didn’t spend even a proportion of that time trying to find information on the company.” And lo and behold you suddenly claim not only to have received the same message as ODR1 but received it well before ODR1 as you emailed the company (over 100 times!) and gave them time to respond. If ODR is wondering what that drag on his coattails is well it is most definitely your lumpen self.

Now I am going to have to filter the pair of you as no matter how funny one-note jokes are they do get rather tiresome after a while. I wish you both well. See ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya!

Thanks ODR1 - good to get some news from Deloitte. Based on the reply you got it looks like the liquidation is unfunded yet Deloitte are not immediately moving forward to complete the process. So it is possible things are still churning in the background for one reason or another.

Lifeishard - This litigation is long running and I don't follow it in a detailed way. I believe SH was a director at Madagascar Oil but that directorship ended some time ago and he is now acting as a creditor. It seems he failed completely in the Bermuda courts and now is trying again in another jurisdiction. I might be wrong, but I think also tried in NYC and possibly failed there as well. I don't know how many entities OMF has in Cayman, but I recall that one was liquidated around the end of 2023.

It is hard to say if it directly benefits FRC. We have known for a long time that finances might be an issue for him (as seen in the FIC case and it is possible that might have indirectly impacted the recent decision to reschedule the case) and he ultimately settled his direct cases with FRC. He is not named in the Deloitte report as being a significant creditor. So he is possibly less of a threat by virtue of his potential lack of finances and the terms of settlement with FRC. There is very little information published on Hope, but what little there is would indicate his attention is focused elsewhere at the moment.

A bit more info on Hope / Madagascar Oil, from end June 24 -

"Steve Hope, Managing Director of Outriders Management Financial Risk, which is the creditor, reached by telephone, specified that "unfortunately, we have not received any repayment of the debt incurred, which now amounts to more than $61 million, following the process in Bermuda. The loan was guaranteed by Madagascar Oil Mauritius and we have therefore asked this company to repay the loan".

https://midi-madagasikara.mg/projet-tsimiroro-madagascar-oil-fragilisee-par-une-procedure-de-liquidation-a-maurice/

The Cayman civil courts are now closed until 16th September, except for urgent listings.

Gazettes will continue to be published as usual.

Jv123 – you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time giving me orders and the like. A pity you didn’t spend even a proportion of that time trying to find information on the company. I assume it is much easier to huff n’ puff and try to rile people.

Sleuths will continue to sleuth, even if it might potentially benefit the odd bod like you.

I just saw your bit that says "This has cost another £1000 from me since delisting in barclays fees, i am to scared to close the account until the lights truly go out."

Have you contacted Barclays to explain the share was delisted and is now being Wound Up and if they can offer to suspend your account (if it only holds FRR) or what happens to your holding if you suspend / terminate your account with them.

Pyrotech – I didn’t get to the end of your post as I couldn’t really follow it. You say, “or the GOGC get the lot” and “get Deloitte to put hold on administration and get parties to agree” when that is exactly what has already happened or is what the liquidation committee is attempting as part of the winding up process with Deloitte. I already explained the situation to you as I see it and as I suggested, best to follow the links I provided to fully digest the GOGC position regarding the MoU and study the Deloitte report on the state of play post winding up.

Pyrotech - I feel you are going to keep asking me the same questions until I relent and give you the rose-tinted reply you want :)

The only way back for us is as laid out in the Deloitte report and the success / failure is not known at this time.

In my opinion there is little point in talking about the company "selling on" given the current situation and when the GOGC have stated on more than one occasion that if FRUS fails to ratify the MoU they will continue to work the fields themselves.

With regard to selling on / partnership, the last prospect was scuppered by ZM. To this day ZM remains embroiled in litigation in the US and Georgia (the status of which is unknown at this time) and owes the company tens of millions of dollars.

Theprodigy - you can refer to p23-24 in this document (GOGC 2022 results) for a snapshot of the situation (as it was at the time of this report and the subsequent Deloitte Creditor Report) -

https://www.gogc.ge/uploads/files/6551e84885731.pdf

The asset sits with FRUS in principle only until the terms of the MoU are met. We do not know if those terms have been varied and / or if the GOGC continue to grant extensions. That is why Deloitte state the company has no assets. For a summary of what the company must do in order to realize the asset you can refer to the Deloitte report p16-18.

On top of all that, the need to successfully reverse the liquidation as discussed in the Deloitte report.