Member Info for Looed

The rule is as follows (assuming you are discussing Scheme of Arrangement which uses the 75% rule) -

"The “headcount test” still applies to creditor schemes of arrangement meaning that the approval threshold is a majority in number representing 75% in value of the creditors or class of creditors (as the case may be) who are present and voting either in person or by proxy at the relevant creditors’ meeting."

https://www.conyers.com/publications/view/schemes-of-arrangement-restructuring-in-the-cayman-islands/

Or another way to explain it is -

"At each meeting ordered to be held the Scheme has to be approved by a simple majority in number (minimum 50%) of those present at the meeting and voting either in person or by proxy, provided they represent 75% of the value of the Class. Both requirements must be met, so a Scheme will not be approved if the simple majority controls less than 75% of the value or if those voting for the Scheme have more than 75% of the value, but represent less than 50% of the number of Stakeholders attending and voting at the meeting."

https://www.bedellcristin.com/knowledge/briefings/cayman-islands-scheme-of-arrangement-what-affected-creditors-andor-shareholders-should-know/

Should a class of creditor dissent, the courts can force the party to accept a deal ('cram down') if the proposal is neutral / beneficial had the Scheme not been proposed.

Thanks for sharing. That deal was completed about 6 weeks before the Ambassador meeting. So that might, at least in part, explain the Georgia connection.

The meet and greet was discussed here 17th-18th November onwards. Perhaps those dark forces are affecting short term memories.

Njames - no, it does not. Parent and subsidiary are separate legal entities. That is why FRC-C is under liquidation while the other entities are currently active. You are correct that as former directors of FRC-C they will be communicating with inquires.

The message that ODR received from Deloitte is correct. However their comments relate solely to FRC-C as the entity currently in liquidation. They have no powers outside of Cayman / FRC-C.

FRC continues to exist as a separate legal entity in other jurisdictions and the BoD of these entities remain in place. In other words, the BoD are currently former directors of FRC-C but are current directors of the other FRC entities.

It is as directors of FRC (elsewhere) that the company can engage with Deloitte.

The Cayman entity is subject to Cayman law and the other entities are governed by the laws of their place of residence, not Cayman.

If these other entities are to be liquidated then parties would need to commence liquidation proceedings in accordance with the laws of place of residence and would be subject to many factors such as corporate structure etc. Liquidation in Cayman does not automatically mean everything else is also liquidated.

Finally, there are no veiled threats from the company about contact with liquidators. It is an individual decision to contact or not to ask questions about your holding. They said if you are going to also make accusations of serious wrong doing (i.e. SN is a serial shoplifter from Wollies) then you should have evidence to back that up. Otherwise it's a baseless accusation.

Monti – I would say the news about Deloitte is certainly interesting and anything that gets these groups talking should be a positive. For example, YA had previously stated they were averse to mediation, so I assume they will need to revisit that position now.

Regarding the FIC case, in June 2023 parties filed a joint motion for continuance to July 2024. Typically, such motions can signal a settlement might be on the table, or at least allow space for settlement talks to take place. The NYC case is dormant pending the outcome of the FIC case.

Monti – Creditors now know it’s an empty shell so I expect matters will develop with relative speed. With regards to a potential deal via Deloitte, will wait for the next piece of the puzzle to fall into place. Hopefully a good sign that previously contentious parties are now made to deal with each other instead of being locked in endless and costly litigation.

WHamBoy – the JOL’s represent creditors collectively, however they do not take their instructions from individual creditors. They will collate data from company records and direct from the creditors, but any decisions will be made in relation to Cayman company law and regulations.

Also, not all creditors are equal. So, any disbursements will depend on their creditor status, not on how much a particular creditor might feel they should be at the front of the queue.

The JOL’s will need to balance the fact that they have found liabilities not assets against the costs of maintaining long running and extremely expensive litigation.

The company did not release the Deloitte statement to me as some have assumed. I had messaged to say the Deloitte page was ‘live’, went out, and had a reply waiting on my return so posted both.

If you had googled Frontera Resources 24-ish hours ago the Deloitte page would have been the first thing that popped up, at least it was in my part of the world.

In court news, on 13th Feb FRC advised the court and Yellow Jersey that FRC-C was now under the control of the JOL’s.

“We are working closely with Deloitte to return the company to the pre-windup status quo for the benefit of all stakeholders, and we are advancing a joint formal plan in this regard.

As this unfolds, more info will become available. We are grateful for the positive and professional, collaborative relationship we’ve established with Deloitte.”

A copy of the official release can be found here - https://www.deloitte.com/cbc/en/services/financial-advisory/services/frc-liquidation.html

Should read "what gets spent given the court cases"

It could be, and the ongoing spending points to efforts to maintain relations. However the reduction might also be the result of prioritizing what gets given the court cases have seen a lot of activity in the recent past.

Consistent with previous quarters, the amount spent on lobbying last quarter was "less than US$5K".

In their pre-trial filing of 19/01 FRC indicated that this case was suitable for mediation. YA stated they did not want to mediate.

Despite YA's objection, the appeal court has decided to send the case to mediation. Parties have a 10-day window to appeal this decision. Parties have 60 days to complete the mediation process.

If parties mediate and settle, they must file a motion to dismiss the appeal within 10 days of reaching settlement.

If there is no settlement after the 60 days, then parties must ask the court for more time to mediate or ask for the case to be returned to the docket.

The record continues to show the parties as Appellant FRC represented by FRC outside counsel and Appellee as YA II and their counsel.

No problem Monti. See you in the New Year.

Thanks Lifeishard. I know sleuthing isn't for everyone be it a matter of time or just how to go about it. (Not at you) But I recall asking many times for help on this BB without anyone stepping up. So those who had "concerns" had ample opportunity to get involved even if it was just to verify matters for themselves. So I don't intend to pay mucvh attention to their nonsense in the New Year.

Lifeishard - Jim Royale was a general comment not at you. Only the first para was in direct reply to you. My name gets mentioned a lot its hard to keep up so messages might drift.

Monti - I was meaning you usually say wait for Looed message etc which I took as subtle reminders. Just saying if that was the case then no need.

Bezzy - it's the last day of the current Lunar Year so a good day to declutter the mind and deal with crap before the new year starts tomorrow. It's the equivalent of Xmas and Boxing Day here but we get 8 days holiday to enjoy it. The Year of the Dragon is usually a good one so lets hope the tradition holds up.

Lifeishard - I think we have a different opinion on Ricardo2019. His benign language is an attempt to undermine (in my mind, insult) people from Devex on down. Devex, unlike that poster has done more than 99% of people here for the collective good. But the poster asks - can we really believe him? Post after post asking "is messaging / validation real?"

If my understanding of the "fake news" nonsense is correct. I invented a message from the company and fooled FSHG into believing it was true. I kept that going then I invented various members of outside counsel and again fooled them into believe that was also true. Then I get various email chains up and going involving various combinations of people / subjects to keep up the pretence. Such dizzy spells at the complexity of it all! Good job I had a spreadsheet and post-it notes to help me keep my various stories straight. My crowning glory is getting evidence and testimony entered into the hands of the court and Judge Weems. Small detail but if all these people are fake, then how was that possible? Shall we just overlook that part? And all that work to fool / control a BB? What are you all - sheep?

Or could it be that a shareholder manages to get the attention of the company, shares some info pertinent to events in play, is passed to outside counsel to build up testimony and witness statements and as a result of those efforts, has maintained a relationship with the company and does what he can to get updates and pass them on here.

I actually told Tenners where to find the details on the liquidators, I suppose he forgot that bit. Instead he uses Njames and others to data-mine on his behalf so he can "help" the liquidator's find where the asset might be. Well all that will achieve is either the state agencies cancel any agreements (as they have done before) or the company will just hand any asset it has it back (as they have done before) and what will happen to us all then?

Be skeptical, sure. But at least I went to the trouble of setting up checks and balances when I had no need to do any such thing. It is laughable the number of people who make shady comments in my direction yet do sweet F.A. themselves for the community they claim to be a part of. You are like the dad in the Royal Family, sat in the chair all blah blah blah. Though to be fair to Jim Royale, at times he did get up to use the loo. So some effort at least on his part.

Lifeishard – I have no idea what I am supposed to know as though the sharing circle is “BoD + Looed”. I suppose it suits certain agendas to sow such discord. A bit like the 10:37 post you mention.

If they had done 1%, no, let me be generous, 0.01% of the productive work that I have done and on their behalf, they would perhaps know that banging out purposefully shady messaging here does not equal effort.

MontiBurns – I get it, you want me to work harder (as if that was possible) so lay off mentioning it in every post. I don’t need a reminder.