Member Info for Looed

Phil_2018 — you wrote: “So some might say but people can say all sorts and it be other than the truth.”

Here are two straightforward points you can quickly and easily verify:

First, in the ZM trial, evidence was given that “everything” had been passed to the State agencies as protection against an attack on the company’s assets.

Second, and more compelling / hard to argue with because it’s in black and white, the PSA makes the contractor’s right to operate (and to use/reprocess the relevant data) conditional on the State Agencies being provided copies of the key technical data. For example:

“…Provided that Georgian Oil and the State are provided with copies of the following data… [the contractor] shall have the right to use, reproduce, reprocess… including… seismic surveys, well logs… core analysis… well files… maps… reservoir studies… reserve calculations… and all other pertinent data relative to the Contract Area.” And so on

On that basis, the idea that anyone is holding technical data as a “secret weapon” doesn’t really hold up.

Phil_2018 - The State Agencies already have the data.

I meant to add that I have asked Deloitte if they will distribute copies of their final report to shareholders, and if so, how. I know a few people have had comms with Deloitte but I assume the majority have not.

"The dissolution order was made on 20 January 2026 and will take effect on 3 February 2026. The dissolution order has been published on the liquidation website."

Spar - The reporting states that SN wrote to/lobbied lawmakers on behalf of TXN Energy, not FRC.

Thanks WHamBoy

Https://thehill.com/policy/international/5708941-republican-donor-lobbies-against-georgia-sanctions/

Njames - you can check here, though any Orders from 19/01 don't appear to be listed at time of posting - https://judicial.ky/public-registers/

Zeron100 - I think not. I laid it out in a post from Feb 2025 which made clear that "It is down to due process now and what happens with matters related to Cayman. I will continue to do my best to explain processes as I know they can be bewildering to some, as well as share any news I find, good or bad, via verifiable 3rd parties", which by and large is what I have done. Its as simple as that.

Phil_2018 - thanks for that reply, albeit a predictable one.

Phil_2018 – Early in 2025 you posted that “it would be more appropriate for someone with a larger stake in the company” to do stuff on your behalf. Your argument being as a small investor it wasn’t worth your time / effort to get involved.

Also in 2025 you posted that “People who have lost big money whine on here but none of them are prepared to do anything about it. That's up to them if they don't mind their money being lost so easy…none of these big investors wants to bother even trying, that's up to them, but in my book if you sit there and do nothing about it, it's your own fault.”

When people pushed back you got defensive and doubled down on your claim that it wasn’t your job to do stuff but others should do it for you.

As I replied to you in 2025 – “Phil - You often mention being a small shareholder, seemingly in the hope that someone else — the supposed larger or more qualified holders you sometimes refer to — will step in and take action on your behalf. That’s not a valid reason for you to do nothing, that is just an excuse you choose to rely on. If you're comfortable suggesting a half-formed idea but not willing to take any ownership of it, then you shouldn’t be surprised when others push it back to you”

In your most recent post you say “To date I don't think anyone has engaged a lawyer who deals with this field despite some people here investing £100k or more. That's ludicrous…you could be surprised what a lawyer in this field could tell you and it might just be very valuable information that could change our fortune's here.” But presumably not valuable or life-changing enough for you to take action yourself.

I am not sure why you thought this weekend was a good time to roll these tropes out yet again but I think its fair to say that others are unlikely to do your bidding on your behalf.

If you believe your theories are viable then why not find a lawyer who will do a free consultation so you can lay out your thinking and see what they say.

Life - no offence taken.

As you will recall, this is the debt that resulted in the liquidation of FRC.

On 22/12/25, SN filed an appeal against the summary judgment in favor of Mourant. The Court of Appeals has not yet accepted the appeal. It has paused the process to question whether the appeal was timely filed and whether the judgment is even appealable in the first place.

Both sides now have 10 days to submit their arguments, after which the court will decide whether the appeal can proceed.

The Cayman Grand Court Cause Lists for the week commencing 19/01 are now available, and they show no listing for FRC (Cause FSD 0343/2023) on 19 January (as suggested by keyzersoze).

The Lists do, however, show some Justices as “writing judgments” on 19/01, so it remains possible the matter is being dealt with in chambers which would be consistent with Deloitte’s earlier reference to an “administrative dissolution.”

If a listed hearing is in fact required in this matter, then, based on the current version of the Cause Lists, the matter may have been relisted to a different date. One proviso - the weekly cause lists can be (and often are) updated during the week and are sometimes amended retrospectively.

You can check the Lists here - https://judicial.ky/hearing-list/grand-court/

This appeal involves the same sum of money that triggered the liquidation of FRC. If you are interested to follow this appeal you can access the filings here, though you might need a VPN for the USA -

https://search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=01-25-01087-CV&coa=coa01 or https://search.txcourts.gov/CaseSearch.aspx?coa=coa01&s=c

The case number is 01-25-01087-CV

Plaintiff has petitioned the court for approx. $25.2K plus costs for unpaid property taxes on the SN residence. They seek foreclosure unless monies are not repaid.

Life - respectfully, you now seem to be complaining that you didn’t receive bespoke messaging tailored to you. And you are twisting things again, this time by trying to read something into a survey that simply isn’t there.

This constant twisting of unrelated points isn’t rational or helpful. I suggest we leave it there as these exchanges must be tedious for others to read.

Life - on the “messaging” point, I’ve already clarified this to you multiple times (including August 2025 and again September 2025). I’m going to restate it once, clearly, and then I’m done revisiting it.

As I said previously:

“You may be confusing two separate events. First, Deloitte’s September 2024 update recorded that the GOGC MoU had expired in August 2024. Separately, Deloitte’s March 2025 update explained that a creditor-driven initiative, which the JOLs accepted in October 2024 (prompting them to pause dissolution), ultimately concluded in March 2025.”

Put simply:

Event 1: Deloitte’s September 2024 update recorded that the GOGC MoU expired in August 2024.

Event 2: Deloitte’s March 2025 update explained that a creditor-driven initiative was accepted by the JOLs in October 2024, which is why dissolution was paused, and that it concluded in March 2025.

So yes, what I referenced in September was subsequently accepted in October and later concluded, exactly as Deloitte later reported. There’s no contradiction unless you try to force everything into a single, linear “one thing must follow another” storyline. In reality, multiple strands can (and did) run in parallel: incorporation activity, background efforts, and the JOL process are not one single thread.

On your “lots of unanswered questions” point: the only answers that matter now are those from primary sources (Deloitte reports, court filings, statements). Deloitte will hopefully issue a final report which should address any remaining points they are able to report on.

And finally, repeatedly referencing people’s losses (as though we are somehow unaware) does not change what the documents say or create new information. It is clearly understood, but it doesn’t affect the record or the flow of verifiable updates.

Looking back, I see I have done my best to answer so, so many of your “why-oh-why” posts. Yet here we are again. So I hope that you will accept that I will not engage further on recycled “what-if’s” or revisit the same timeline again.

For clarity

Frontera Resources Holdings LLC - FRC subsidiary

Frontera Resources Holdings INC (not LLC as per FRC sub) - no known association with FRC, name changed to TXN Energy Holdings Inc in Jan 2024

B-2-0 thanks for your kind words, though it really was a group effort.

First, I would separate the two: FRUS is (per the group structure) an FRC subsidiary, whereas TXN is not, at least, there’s no credible evidence it sits under FRC. It appears to be a separate vehicle. An important distinction.

You are right that the entity in liquidation is FRC (the Cayman parent we hold shares in). But that doesn’t put subsidiaries “outside” the process. Any ownership interests FRC has in its subsidiaries form part of the ‘liquidation estate’ and are dealt with by the JOLs as part of winding up FRC.

That is because subsidiaries are usually where the value sits. So when Deloitte state that FRC has no assets, they are treating the sub’s as having no realizable value for the estate. Typically, they are little more than dormant shells.

If something like FRUS were to “reappear” after FRC is dissolved, it would inevitably raise questions such as who owns it and whether any value exists for creditors of FRC. In that scenario, the JOLs/creditors would likely seek the involvement of the Court.

That possibly explains the “Plan B” narrative around TXN. If TXN is genuinely separate from FRC, it should generally sit outside the JOLs’ remit. But it’s also irrelevant to FRC shareholders unless someone can show it contains assets/rights that properly belonged to FRC or were transferred out.

Which brings us back to the public record: both Deloitte and the GOGC have stated that the MoU - which at the time was effectively the only identifiable “asset” was cancelled and reverted to the State, rather than being assigned or transferred to any third party. That’s also a good example of how the “value” in a subsidiary ultimately rolls up to (and is controlled via) the parent. If the key asset at subsidiary level is removed or cancelled, the parent’s equity in that subsidiary becomes worthless. Deloitte have also reaffirmed that FRC has no assets.

As Keysersoze noted, the dissolution hearing is due later this month. Deloitte can raise any concerns with the Court, but based on what we can currently see, TXN doesn’t appear to be on the JOLs’ radar.