Member Info for Looed

Hi Celestialbody – FSHG is currently closed to new members and the email address is not monitored. Any messaging sent to the existing database would be flagged here in advance and copied here soon after sending.

As you might recall, FRC advised the court of their intention to appeal the recent decision in YA II v FRC. In that case the court awarded Summary Judgment to YA II.

Between 19/01 and 31/01, and in accordance with the court schedule, FRC completed the necessary pre-trial protocols (filing of docketing statements, supplying the court record etc.). FRC now have 30 days to file their appeal brief with the court.

No problem ODR1

ODR1 - I replied to Monti a few days ago but I think it was easy to miss in the back and forth of the past few days. The timing of the message was decided in advance to coincide with the publication date of the Gazette. However I only got the message the same day I posted it. Messaging is a continuous process and some replies are relatively quick and some require various degrees of back and forth, but the outreach is ongoing.

I believe my post clearly says if you are going to do something then do it carefully and wisely.

Tenners - I note you are pushing others to take action and report “directors working against our interests” without admitting that you yourself have already done the same? The fact you say “they should have” perhaps indicates you have not.

If you are going to make, or are expecting others to make on your behalf, very serious allegations of wrong-doing to Deloitte then you will need to have hard, factual evidence to support your claim. “The company didn’t talk to me” just won’t cut it. I would suggest you / anyone prepared to make such claims cross-check the obligations of a Private CEC before proceeding. The matter has been discussed here many times and such information is easy to find via Google. Be aware of the danger in making potentially libelous statements via a professional body.

As you rightly state, Deloitte are a well-regarded company. and yes, it is very common for shareholders to contact liquidators in certain situations. However specific to making allegations as opposed to general enquires, I would suggest you / anyone first seek guidance on how to proceed.

Just be careful not to expose yourself to unintended consequences because you allowed your anger and frustration to get the better of you.

As others have said, the last thing a liquidator, in this type of liquidation, is concerned about is a shareholder. They are focused on the interests of the creditors. And don’t pay them any money before seeking legal advice. Professional or not they are first and foremost a “for-a-fee” operation that in this instance reports to the courts.

But if they are the aliens then doesn't that make us alien to them. So that means they aren't the aliens at all - we are!

Ricardo2019 – you said “I'm not saying these messages are fraudulent at all, in fact, I have a theory that they are part of SN's legal strategy and therefore real. But I can't prove that they are real. Everything I've been provided is unverifiable from people I don't know who tell me about things only they have seen.” What a conundrum! So we will have to agree to disagree on the meaning of verification.

Before any one asks, no, DevonianExile's account has not been hacked and his post was not planted by dark forces.

Or was it?

If you are a member of FSHG then you would have received the following email, sent 8th May, 2021,

"Dear Fellow FRR Shareholders

….However, we know that the company continues to communicate with one of our members who also shares these messages with FSHG and the LSE BB (under the pseudonym of Looed).

You will recall we have previously circulated some of this messaging with our members by email or by validating the messages on the LSE BB.

The “comms chain” has sent another message which we would like to share with you. We agree with the shareholder that the source of the comms should not be revealed, though we are able to confirm with absolute confidence that the source is a key figure at the heart of the FRC organization.”

Since Day 1 of comms FSHG have been involved and receive full, unedited and unredacted copies of the in / out comms. That was the situation then, that is the situation now.

Good enough? Or did I fake the FSHG message as well.

All the information re verification etc. was right there in front of you had you bothered to take a second to look for it.

Tenners – for someone who says they are not a keyboard warrior you are giving a very good impression of one. I have said if you want to do something then do it, you come back with “Surely, you are not advocating we do nothing?”, and now it seems, many posts later, you have still done nothing but flood the BB.

You ask why the company engages with me to which I say who cares? I doubt I will ever reveal the true nature of the relationship as its between me and them. I just share what I can and from the get-go had the source verified by FSHG. If that is an issue for you then so be it.

What I can say about messaging is that all in / out emails go via company email accounts which are laid out as any corporate email is – names, titles, addresses etc. There is always someone cc’d in, sometimes more than one person. There is no messaging via anonymous apps, WhatsApp, that sort of thing.

I find it farcical the number of times I go to the effort to get and share a message to be then met with numerous posts addressed to me that are full of all manner of “stuff” only for the poster to take offence when I have the audacity to reply. I am not your punching bag just because you feel aggrieved. I am the one doing the leg work you couldn’t be bothered to do.

MontiBurn – I understand your question now. The message was in reply to message from me with the timing of the reply as I explained earlier. It’s a good job they don’t monitor what they call the “public domain” on a regular basis and certainly not today as I think the only message I would get is “why do you bother?”.

Coggy – being in the Far East I rely on crystals, chanting and the local temple.

In my location we are governed by the principle of Strategic Ambiguity, and I think that is the same thing the company is doing. You play the long game, keep the parties guessing until you win or lose. Angry posts on a BB won’t change a thing, or else change would have happened years ago.

And I have been polite and helpful to you as I have been a number of times today. All I am saying is instead of you saying you / others will do something, just do it.

Tenners - if you wan to "make some noise" then what is stopping you? Indeed you and the other keyboard warriors have had years and years to do something and you did what...exactly? Moaning at me or idle threats about alleged criminality of others isn't an action plan, that's just bluster and laziness. Let us know how you get on with your proposed outreach and hope you get some useful intel to share.

Tenners - you can search the below link for the Orders etc. Just type "Frontera" and the Order that contains the relevant laws and the name of the liquidators should be easy to find.

https://judicial.ky/court_search/

Montiburns - The Cayman Gazette deadlines and publication dates are timetabled well in advance. The Order from the Grand Court meant it would be recorded in the latest edition - https://www.gov.ky/gazettes/gazettes-dates-deadlines

I should also point out that the message was sent to coincide with the publishing of the Cayman Gazette which records the liquidation of FRC.

WHamBoy - My recollection might be wrong, but I think the use of "constructive manner" is a new, and positive, phrase.

In this situation - Winding Up Order - the liquidators are appointed by and report to the Grand Court and are primarily concerned with creditors, same as what tsbs1 stated. While each liquidation company might differ, typically they are only obligated to report to the court and creditors.

Tenners - it is great you are doing research, if only more people did the same, but FRC was wound up in accordance with Companies Act (2023 Revision) not 2018. There might not be much difference between the two revisions, but you should check against the correct Act. And as I posted earlier, you need to be sure which type of liquidation you are discussing as the rules and procedures are very different for each class.

Ziggy, we paid for info on FRC2 back in Nov 2020 -

"Sorry folks, nothing of interest I am afraid -

Entity Name : FRONTERA RESOURCES CORPORATION 2

Jurisdiction : Cayman Islands

Registration Number : 75634

Registration Date : 12th August 1997

Entity Type : EXEMPT

Registered Office : REGISTERED OFFICE RESIGNED

P. O. Box 0

Registered Office Resigned

GRAND CAYMAN

CAYMAN ISLANDS

Initial Subscriber:

Authorised Share Capital: CI$41,000.00

Nature of Business:

Financial Year End:

Status : STRUCK OFF-BY REGISTRAR

Status date: 31 OCTOBER 2005- INFORMATION REGARDING THE CORPORATE RECORDS AND REGISTERS ARE

- NOT AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION

- THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONFIRM THE ENTITY IS IN GOOD STANDING"

“We are indeed continuing to advance the current situation in a constructive manner in the interest of all shareholders.”