Member Info for Looed

Sorry I thought I had posted it -

In FIC v SN, FIC have filed an unopposed motion (meaning SN has agreed to the proposal) to reschedule to October 2025.

Thanks Saucysausage, you are a trooper for trawling through all my posts (but oh my, that must have taken you quite a while!) to disprove nonsense about me and prices. Thank you for putting disinformation and distraction to rest, which I know was your sincere intent.

WHamBoy – You are misrepresenting what I said. What part of “if / when we see how they plan to manage a return we can maybe start to think about a price, but right now it’s between zero and a wild guess” is unclear?

It is a real pity these laser sharp investigative talents haven’t been put to more productive use considering some very recent developments in relation to parties connected to the company.

WHamBoy - I am pretty sure I agreed no such thing. If I recall the post you are referring to I think I said price is the one thing I never think about given the challenges that need to be overcome.

Hi Kenco - I am all good thanks.

I can see that in my last post recounting some of SN's testimony, the last answer from Steve doesn't flow very well. It seems I lost some of the transcript when I cut & pasted from the court reporters record. So here is the corrected version of Steves answer -

"A. I've made, just off the top of my head, five or six trips to the country with my colleagues and have re-established the basis for going forward with our business; but the actions that Mr. Mamulaishvili took to convert our holdings created tremendous obstruction to our ability to conduct business for the past year. We have lost revenues that we haven't calculated. I wasn't prepared to do that for today.

But as a result of our holdings being converted and taken from us and now currently held in trust as they're being returned, we've lost revenue.

We've been hindered in our ability to raise capital because of the Internet awareness of what has gone on. And until all of this is brought to conclusion, it is creating a tremendous amount of confusion and -- intentional confusion that Mr. Mamulaishvili intended to create and is creating at this moment by continuing to represent that he somehow is associated with us."

Just to expand on my comment regarding SN working behind the scenes, this is from SN's sworn testimony during one of the numerous post-ZM trial related appeals.

Here, 'Q' is counsel and 'A' is SN -

"Q. So as we sit here today, who currently owns the assets that formerly belonged to Frontera Resources?

A. The government of Georgia had stepped in since our hearing this summer and worked together with me and the company to take the holdings from Green Capital and hold them in trust and return them to us.

Q. How much time and energy and money did it take for Frontera Resources to undo the damage caused to the company by ZM's conspiracy with Green Capital in agreeing to a 5.8 million-dollar judgment against Frontera?

A. I have spent a tremendous amount of time since our hearing this summer -- this past summer traveling to Georgia with my staff.

Q. How many trips do you think that you've made to Georgia?

A. I've made, just off the top of my head, five or six trips to the country with my colleagues and have reestablished the basis for going forward with our business; but the actions that Mr. Mamulaishvili took to convert our holdings created tremendous obstruction to our ability to past year. We calculated. I conduct business for the past -- for the have lost revenues that we haven't wasn't prepared to do that for today. But as a result of our holdings being converted and taken from us and now currently held in trust as they're being returned, we've lost revenue. We've been hindered in our ability to raise capital because of the Internet awareness of what has gone on. And until all of this is brought to conclusion, it is creating a tremendous amount of confusion and -- intentional confusion that Mr. Mamulaishvili intended to create and is creating at this moment by continuing to represent that he somehow is associated with us."

As a result of those talks, agreements and visits parties went on to sign an MoU.

Monti / WHamBoy – thanks for your comments.

Monti you say, “at this point, we can only assume….” and go on to make a very logical argument on the possible state of play. I would urge people remain open to a range of possibilities and outcomes until hard news is presented by Deloitte.

Regarding sniffer dogs, for myself I see an almost zero chance of any informal updates to be shared on this BB. I will of course let you know if that situation changes.

Also, communications are for the most part under the control of Deloitte not the company. The liquidation committee reports to Deloitte etc. as I explained in my last post.

I do not think the foreign agents law will affect the success / failure of FRC given the MoU was agreed back in 2022 and as at the time of the Deloitte report the agents bill was under discussion. You might recall post Arbitration when it seemed the company (though mostly ZM) was constantly attacking the Georgian government and vice versa, Senators letters and so on. It seemed very nasty all round. Yet behind the scenes SN negotiated an arrangement with the GOGC to park and protect the license. So assuming the parties continue to engage they can hopefully continue to separate these types of issues from their discussions.

Regarding the time this is taking. In a simple compulsory liquidation (which, at the outset, this seemed to be) the First Report is usually prepared within a couple of weeks whereas the FRC report took 2 months. As you can see a lot of work went on behind the scenes in that 2 months so in that regard this is not a straightforward strike-off until parties fail to persuade Deloitte they have a workable plan. As WhamBoy says it can’t go on forever so news must drop relatively soon. Whatever the outcome, once Deloitte consider the process complete all stakeholders will be informed.

Ziggy - with regard to your last point regarding the Gazette, it is mandatory that any strike-off be recorded in the Cayman Gazette, so, should that be the outcome, it will not somehow bypass the public record. In advance of that, all stakeholders should receive a copy of the liquidators Final Report before it is submitted to the Grand Court for their approval and subsequent strike-off. The posting of a strike-off in the Gazette signifies the formal end of the liquidation process.

Any proposal to reverse the liquidation (as discussed in the C.R.) must be acceptable to, firstly, the creditors and secondly, the liquidators. If the liquidators approve any proposal, this report should also be circulated to all stakeholders before the liquidator seeks approval from the court to reverse the liquidation.

It is a statutory requirement that the liquidator provide a copy of their final report to shareholders before the report is submitted to the Grand Court. Absent news from other sources, there will be an official statement from Deloitte.

All this talk of Russian control hasn't hindered the signing of some significant energy related deals / MoU's involving Georgia over the past 24 hours or so, one of which includes a US federal agency. Some of this flurry of activity is likely related to the energy conference that recently concluded in Georgia.

If you had bothered with even the most cursory of checks you would have seen that the liquidators assume at most, around 15% of costs towards "investors and creditors" and also that, at time of reporting, "the liquidators have no funding to support the cost of the liquidation", so it might be news to you, but its there for all to see.

Gotreal - at least we can agree that the ability to use caps seems to have disappeared!

orban is pertinent as hungary recently introduced something similar to the "foreign agents" law, hungary often blocks eu initiatives that require a bloc vote. hungary will take on the the eu presidency in july 2024 which include powers to set the eu agenda during the term of its rule. for the rest of the eu, this prospect is hardly poppy****.

With regard to the EU, I think you overlook one significant consequence. Leaving showed that a potentially powerful economic and political bloc could be cleaved apart. It expedited the influx of outside forces (China, Russia etc) to further sow dissent, emboldened the Orbans of the world and more. I don't see much talk of democracy, individual freedoms and so on coming from those influencers. You cannot be a contributor to a decline and and stand on the sidelines clutching pearls at the consequences of it.

WHamBoy - Hope for the best, or at least something, but be well prepared for the worst is probably appropriate. If there is no funding liquidators will close things out ASAP so they don't need to waste time on non-billable activities such as replying to shareholders and so on. I recall someone posted a thread along the lines of "Deloitte want to hear from you", well the time spent by Deloitte dealing with that likely meant no funds for a meaningful investigation into the details around the liquidation event.

The C.R. contains a lot of information and you can try to roughly guess at potential timelines if things did / did not happen if that helps. Outside of that it is standard practice in Cayman for a liquidator to distribute the Final Report to all stakeholders before it is submitted to the court. Failing that, the Gazette / court filings are another info source.

WhamBoy – there are little bits of minor news out there – lobbying, court case updates etc., but obviously decisive news now depends on the workings of the liquidation committee, it’s dealings with Deliotte and ultimately the Grand Court. They and they alone will decide how and when news is shared with shareholders.

The Creditor Report was dated 22 March so almost 2 months ago now, and tomorrow, 16th May, marks 4 months since the Winding Up Order was issued. For a liquidation, more so one that isn’t a straightforward winding up, it is still early days.

Georgia continues to score very highly on all key business indicators i.e. tax regime, ease of doing business etc. At least at COB yesterday the markets don't appear unduly concerned. All tbe Georgian / Georgian based companies that trade in London were down about 5-6% but remain above their position 6-12 months ago.

I think the GG have been “obliging” FRC since 2020 when they suspended the termination of the PSA, then allowed FRC to ‘park’ the PSA with them to deal with ZM, and more recently agreed an MoU that the company can either comply with or not. I think the GG likely feel that they have been more than patient with FRC.

As both the PM and the USA have stated, what matters is what happens in the veto stage when outside / legal arguments are brought into play. That is expected to take about 4 weeks or so to complete. Both sides have now said tweaks “needed” (USA) and “possible” (PM).

When most people here invested in FRC I imagine BD was then, as now, the real power and the country was relatively cool on Western relations compared to recent times, but that didn’t stop people investing.

If a Chinese / Arab company made you an offer for the company – would folks decline due to the lack of pro-western credentials?

I must say, it is bemusing to see y’all front and centre in support of a country and its EU aspirations when the UK decided as a collective that the EU wasn’t that great after all.

It is incorrect to say "GD declines to discuss bilateral partnership" without context. The visit was declined because the US refused to remove a pre-condition that the PM suspend discussions on the foreign agents bill.

"(Parliamentary Speaker) Papuashvili said “setting preconditions” while inviting the Georgian Prime Minister did “not fit friendly relations” - "It is unfortunate that the United States Ambassador made a statement with such an interpretation. [...] Of course, conducting a visit with reservations does not fit into the spirit of the strategic partnership. We are always ready to talk both with the Ambassador and our partners in America”, he said."

https://agenda.ge/en/news/2024/38980

Following on the this, a delegation from the US Sec. State will visit Georgia next week. Best to see how that transpires.

https://agenda.ge/en/news/2024/39078#gsc.tab=0

Orbiting all this is the Georgia's desire for an FTA with the USA which includes direct flights from the USA for that new airport they are planning to build. They bang on about it continually.

If you take a snapshot of the 6 month trading pattern of Georgian companies trading on the LSE, 3 of them (BEGO / CGEO / BLOE) are up, some significantly so, and the other one (TBCG) is flat.

I wouldn't directly equate the fate of FRC with this issue, at least at this stage. Developments with FRC have carried on for years with the GG irrespective of how the political story of the day is playing out. The fate of FRC depends on the ability of the liquidation committee to bring parties to an agreement in tandem with obtaining ongoing extensions from the state agencies to allow matters to run their course in Cayman. The state agencies want their money from FRC and they have made clear will not allow the PSA to go to anyone else. In that scenario, they are more likely to side with the company than not if there is a genuine pathway to getting paid (ideally soon) and the company is able to present a viable financial and technical plan that meets the appropriate thresholds established by the agencies / MoU. I doubt they will give open-ended extensions for ever, but they have cooperative in the past as per the extensions granted to the MoU and the comments made in the Creditor Report.

Generally speaking, if there is limited or no funding to support a liquidation then the process tends to be wrapped up sooner rather than later. If there are no resources to complete a comprehensive investigation the liquidator tends to move quickly to close out the process.

However, even with limited or no funding, the liquidator has certain obligations that must be complied with, most notably the issuing of the Final Report that summarizes the liquidation process, findings and their recommendations. Typically, this report will be sent to all stakeholders (including shareholders) before it is submitted to Grand Court.