Member Info for Looed

Theprodigy - your are talking about two unrelated events. In simple terms, the cost recovery pool is offset against future earnings it is not a debt waiting to be repaid to the company. A bit like a tax loss, you can only offset it against other earnings, it isn't a simple refund. If there are no operations then there is no way to recover sunk costs.

As Deloitte have already stated, the company has no assets. Its only hope is to complete the MoU (the creditor report details the hurdles that need to be overcome in that regard), restart operations and generate revenue. At that point, the sunk costs can play a role.

Montiburns - regarding litigation between Hope - SN / FRC, I purposefully said " it looks like all litigation between Hope (as a named party) and Frontera / SN.." had ceased. The FIC case is FIC v SN and not FIC, Hope v SN etc. Obviously the FIC case is ongoing as I have reported.

Lifeishard - yes you can take that viewpoint, but you can also contend that this move allows breathing space for a focus on more immediate matters. The JOL's would only propose this motion if they believed it increased their potential for some kind of return from the defendant (or defendants if they are able to serve ZM in Georgia).

The court has now accepted the unopposed motion to reschedule the trial and it is now docketed for a two-week trial beginning 20/10/25.

Consistent with previous quarters, Cornerstone received "less than $5K" to lobby for FRC between 1st April - 30th June.

https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/e62221af-d3bf-4922-93e9-c7753059164a/print/

SA17 - that statement comes from the Deloitte creditor report, see p13 which discusses creditors.

pyrotech - there is a great deal of information in the Deloitte report so it is worth a re-read. Since 2019 FRC has been little more than a corporate shell, so any deal is to restart operations and not to "keep trading".

In a compulsory liquidation, shareholders have virtually no rights. Deloitte should update us on their recommendation to the court. The company has stated more than once that their intent was to reverse the events in Cayman "for all stakeholders" and until we hear anything to the contrary, that remains the case.

The GOGC have now been working the fields for a number of years and have stated they are happy to continue to do so should FRC fail to ratify the MoU, so I think they have the data they need. Further, as SN stated in testimony, FRC willingly handed back the license and cooperated with the state agencies to maintain operations (and scupper ZM), so I think a lot of information has been willingly passed from FRC to the GOGC.

The GG will allow the company to restart operations subject to certain terms and conditions as detailed in the MoU. I don't think "need" comes into it, it is a transactional relationship in which the GOGC have made clear what they want. That said, the key to this is SN's relationship with the GG which appears robust and likely a major reason we still have an invitation to start over. Another positive is that to get the MoU agreed, the company must have provided a comprehensive financial and technical work plan that satisfied the state agencies.

I disagree with your earlier comment that ZM is a "side show". The reverberations of that carnage continue to this day. Had he not done what he did, we would not be having this conversation today.

Pyrotech - I am not sure what you want me to comment on? The Georgian government is the biggest creditor of FRC, so it makes sense the GG might allow wiggle room for the Liquidation / Creditor Committee to put together a palatable restructuring deal that satisfies the GG and the majority of creditors. If they can do that, then it goes to Deloitte and finally the court for approval. The GG have already given significant extended deadlines which is a good sign, but they will not wait for ever.

WHamBoy - typically, Deloitte should update all stakeholders on the contents of their final report / recommendations related to the Winding Up before the report is lodged with the court. But it is worth checking the website in case that process doesn't play out or other actions are presented to the court.

Whilst it might seem quite for Steve Nicandros, it looks like Stephen Hope is keeping the courts very busy. His involvement in the legal quagmire that is Madagascar Oil rumbles on (10+ years of litigation). His "side" took the matter all the way to the Supreme Court of Bermuda and lost, so Hope has recently decided to ignore that ruling and is trying his hand with the Supreme Court of Mauritius.

On the flip side, recent federal filings by Hope confirm what we already know, that it looks like all litigation between Hope (as a named party) and Frontera / SN has ceased or been settled.

Lifeishard - no

The JOL’s have decided, or more likely have been persuaded, that the probability of getting any kind of a return is higher by delaying the case instead of bringing it to a conclusion as originally intended. For SN, I imagine one of the main benefits of this delay is that it postpones the legal ramifications for him had he lost the case and the impact what would have on his ability to conduct business.

Typically, when parties in the other cases involving Hope etc. agreed to very long delays they tend to end in a settlement, though it is not always the case that the terms agreed are fulfilled.

On the flipside, any potential deal that SN is trying to secure, for himself and / or for FRC, might be dependent on the cessation of litigation. If that is the case, though this move might help SN personally it might also hinder the ability to complete financing etc. for any potential deal.

If there is no link between this case and other matters, then this benefits SN as his legal team supported the motion to reschedule. It also seeks to being ZM back in the mix and hold him to account.

The docket has been updated and now shows a revised trial date of 20/10/25

The rescheduling motion in the above that was docketed for Monday 8th July will need to be revised. The whole court system will be closed 8th July due to hurricane activity. A revised date should be posted soon.

A hearing on the Motion has been docketed for 8 July. As the motion is unopposed, the court is likely to approve the request to reschedule the trial.

Correct - the fields have been operated by the GOGC. The MoU is explained in the 2022 GOGC accounts (on the GOGC website) and is discussed in the Creditor Report (p16). If the company cannot fulfill the terms of agreements made then the contract area remains with the GOGC.

SA17 - The "100 million" was only ever a proposal. If you have the Creditor Report you can see that the company has no liquid assets. Page 17 of that report does explain the current non-binding financing proposal which was subject to various deals and compromises which includes fulfilling the terms of the MoU .

To your last point, generally speaking, liquidation is preferred if a company has no assets and a creditor has little to no chance of recovering monies owed. It means the liquidator has tried everything they can (or as much as available cash will allow them to try) to unearth funds in ways not available to creditors, it offers legal closure to the creditor and the monies owed can be written off.

They might not reply but that inbox is monitored so they will receive your message.

Unfortunately, the only guarantee on news flow is that Deloitte will provide an update at some point in time. Either the committee have persuaded all creditors to fall in line and they can get Deloitte to accept their proposal (and that proposal remains a return to the pre-wind up status) and present it to court or Deloitte say, “times up” and update the Grand Court to complete the liquidation. In either scenario, Deliotte should update all stakeholders before they proceed to petition the court. So, news will come from them at some point outside of potential news from any other sources.

Announcing on here that you are deflated won’t change anything. Why not log your displeasure with them directly and explain your reasons why. That way you have more chance of being heard than a post on here.

Sorry - first line should ready "..this development has happened now because the court..."

Montiburns – the reason this development has happened now is not because the court asked the parties for a status update. This unopposed motion was filed to both update the court and avoid the need to make an appear before the judge. The motion is yet to be approved by the judge but as it is an unopposed motion I think there is every reason to expect it will be so ordered.

FIC / SN have been ‘collaborating’ since at least June 2023 when parties first filed a joint motion for continuance following settlement with Hope. The move to serve ZM began in the later half of 2023.

Regarding Yellow Jersey. The court wants to “D-WOP” the case (Dismiss for Want of Prosecution) but YJ filed a pre-trial report so keeping the case on the docket. The pre-trial report has a glaring inaccuracy so I imagine both the court and FRC will take a dim view of this attempt to continue this action.

Lifeishard - not sure if this is the same link you had before but you should be able to search Cayman cases from here

https://judicial.ky/court_search/#