Member Info for Looed

Cheers Jim, appreciated.

As the FSHG message says - "Just to confirm Jim has kindly forwarded the relevant detail and the FSHG team are entirely satisfied regarding it's authenticity."

Meaning FSHG will have seen the in / out comms that includes the relevant contact info from the corporate side.

Please remember that JimSlade has already had his messages verified by FSHG - as posted by DevonianExile regarding earlier messaging -

"Just to confirm Jim has kindly forwarded the relevant detail and the FSHG team are entirely satisfied regarding it's authenticity. We have thanked him for his efforts and would hope that the contact established proves to be a basis for future progress - for company and shareholders alike.

As previously communicated FSHG remains in hibernation - but should the opportunity arise we would be happy to use the database for the mutual benefit of both company and shareholders."

Nice one Jim, thanks for sharing.

I recall the article and I believe he has some connection to TW

Pyro - in your last post you begin with "I tried to reach out a week before trying to find out if you had a legal background". No, you did not. So unravels they rest of your reverse ferret.

Indeed in your original post to which you refer I answered 99% of the questions you asked me in as much detail as I could. You are welcome. At no point did you reference information you wanted to make available.

You said "all Looed had to do" was ask for permission to access the files, and you invited others to do the same. Are you expecting people to contact you with their personal info for you to harvest shareholder information?

And as for your "all Looed had to do" comment as though I am complicit in the mess you have created and are wholly responsible for. You are, again, sadly mistaken.

Let's not engage anymore. I expect no one has he energy.

Pyrotech – you said “Here are the facts”. Well deception and deflection do not facts make.

Just a few examples -

You said, “After trying to contact you before posting the link“. No, you posted the link then tried to rope me in to provide you with cover knowing that your earlier actions could be damaging to the company.

You said, “I am absolutely fuming that you have made out that i intended harm to the company”. No, it was you who originally admitted to offering “dark secrets” and “possibly damming” information.

You said “As for giving out my name and address”. No, what I did was remind you that the company is extremely litigious and posting here under a nickname would not protect you should they choose to proceed. Further, I offered advice in that post on how to protect yourself.

I won’t bother with the rest.

Your obscene post at 15:42 is enough for me. But let me end on a positive vibe and I am happy to concede that you are right in one regard. I must be a bit thick to do what I do and also a bit of a fool to post information that might benefit the likes of you.

Tenners - thanks for your message and points made. I would say it is wrong to conflate comms strategy (or lack thereof) with the purposeful sharing of information that can knowingly damage the company and those invested in it. I think they should be viewed as separate issues.

Pryotech – The company monitors the BB and I assume they will see for themselves that you have posted - with intent - links and offered information that in your owns words could be “damming” to the company, and by extension each and every shareholder. The old saying about cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.

Perhaps you thought your post of 12:17 would help to distance yourself from the consequences of your earlier action. You achieved the opposite, and I expect the company will interpret your post as an admission that you were fully cognizant of the consequences of your action. You then go on to post another communication channel inviting people to request this “damming” information despite your admission at 12:17.

Let’s say I post “Here is pyros real name and address and I believe has a stolen Picasso stashed in his shed, I do hope no one makes use of this possibly damming info”. If I then go on to say, “just to add that I am not responsible for any of the consequences of sharing this info,” would you accept that?

But how would you feel if WHamBoy, infamous criminal overlord of the West End sees the post and comes calling with his track-suited and gold chained crew saying “’ello Pyro, My ole girl is one classy dame and is a bit partial to a nice Picasso, so give it ‘ere gov and there’ll be no need for my boys ‘ere to show you how persuasive they can be, isn’t that right lads?”. Que the infamous WHamBoy neck crack and bulging eye stare. You would understandably be upset with WHamBoy but mostly you would blame me for sharing the info in the first place, correct? Do you see how weak your 12:17 defense is?

The company has no issue with free speech, negative commentary, or analysis. That also extends to statements about SN & the BoD – I doubt TSBS1 will ever receive a cease-and-desist for his ‘colorful observations’ about SN & Co – but you are deluded if you think intentionally posting harmful information will not have consequences. I would also add you are naïve if you think you can hide behind a nickname on this website.

We all know how litigious the company can be and I remind you of the company statement I shared on 18 November “Anyone who choose to communicate with third parties...recognize that they will be held accountable for any damage to our progress/business that results.”

Bedex referred to you as an “attention seeking box botherer”. You may well regret the type of attention you might receive.

You are wholly responsible for your own actions, but if it was me, I would ask LSE to remove those posts as quickly as possible. You have already agreed that the sharing of damaging information is not a good idea. So you must also agree that such actions only harm the company, it’s shareholders and therefore you.

Very true FreeCapital - it's always a fine line knowing what and when to share. Peoples gut reaction to a question like "do you want more information now?" will always be yes, but also hopefully less eager to agree to "do you want more information that will actually harm the company and your holding if released at this time?"

I have no doubt Team ZM check in here every day and I am always mindful of that when posting.

Hi ThomBola – The shares – mine, yours, SN’s - sit with Frontera Resources Corporation (FRC) which is a Cayman based company. FRC is the parent to a number of entities which includes FRUS.

The “location” of the asset has been under dispute. The company stated they had properly assigned the asset from the local operating company to FRUS and this was disputed by, well, almost everyone that believed the company owed them some money. It appeared that the situation regarding the assignment was at stalemate.

As recently shared by ODR1, In late 2022 the GOGC and the company agreed a MoU which proposed that the asset be wholly assigned to FRUS, conditional on FRC meeting a number of requirements. As reported by the GOGC –

“On 14 November 2022 SAOG and GOGC, acting on behalf of the Government of Georgia, on the one part, and Frontera Resources Corporation (“FRC”), a Houston, Texas USA international oil and gas exploration company and FRUS (wholly owned subsidiary of FRC) signed a memorandum of understanding (“MoU”) setting forth their mutual agreement regarding the assignment of the rights, interests and obligations of Frontera to FRUS.”

Now we wait to see if the company was able to comply with the terms of the MoU and if the assignment to FRUS was ratified.

That is the situation to the best of our knowledge.

Pryotech - just to clarify that I didn't take your post wrong at all and I did say in my response that most of it was not aimed at you. Also, I did my best to answer your questions. Thanks for your response.

Kippermanbike - Looed is my second account though I have no idea what my first name was. I must have been a member for a long time as when I wanted to post about FRC it said my email address was already on record. I was over in Looe at the time and it just seemed easier to start a new account under a new email address. Or does that sound fishy? (Looe is a fishing port after all)

I would expect everyone has their own unique reason for their individual start date and their reasons for lurking / posting when they do.

Pyro – to you last paragraph. Regarding debts, all we know, at least in Georgia, is that the courts allowed the GOGC to work the fields in part to pay down debts. We don’t know how much oil has been produced or if any of those funds have found their way back to the USA. I personally don’t see any evidence of a major, though that doesn’t rule out some kind of partnership down the line. I say that because the GOGC will only deal with FRC and hopefully FRUS as per the MoU, and historically they rebuffed Outrider and Green Capital. Also, the first part of the last company message I shared was very clear that SN remains at the helm of the company.

I cannot comment on timelines but compared to delist / post-delist. The company lost everything via ZM, the license ran out, there was that whole arbitration thing, multiple court cases in multiple locations. Now, these court cases are in the home stretch many with action dates and, crucially, there is a time-sensitive MoU on the table. Quite the remarkable turnaround. So relative to delist things have never looked so positive but it requires a bit more patience while things play out until we can be entirely sure and know where we sit in the mix. At least we have some dates and markers now.

Pyrotech – Thanks for your message and please don’t take this reply as personally directed at you but it is a tad insulting being made a topic of discussion.

Do you know how many people I reply to (just check the last 24-48 hours for a taster) and how I always try my best to reply in as much detail and as clearly as I can to inform folks while not giving away anything that might aid those who still seek to destroy us? Can you guess how long each of those replies takes to craft? Do you know what is involved in following so many court cases? Then of course there is all the research that needs to be done in relation to those cases, the cross-checking and so on so I can offer as accurate a reply as I can. Oh, then there are the 50+ translations I organized. Can you appreciate the admin / payment network that had to be established to make that work, never mind finding the translator and agreeing very good terms? Then there is the minefield that is dealing with the company and making sure the tenuous link remains open and they continue to engage. How about the time it takes negotiating with FSHG when they have kindly helped to get some messages out. Then there are all the times I have asked people to help me and not even one offered support. And yet I must justify myself?

Is that enough? Could I do more? Anyone you can nominate that I can benchmark myself against so I can improve my performance?

You have no idea what I have done for the company – and by extension for you (and me) as shareholders – and, as I am not the bragging type, it’s highly probable you never will know the full story. Do you think they just picked my name out of a hat and said “Oh, that’s a nice nickname, lets send that random person some messages and hope they share?”

I never understand why (genuine?) posters tun into trolls and make me the subject yet abjectly fail to produce anything of substance, a single post, where I have lied, misled, ramped, de-ramped or whatever negative terminology you care to use.

I don’t see others being asked to “justify” themselves so why, given the above, should I. I do note the “genuine” posters who occasionally make me the topic never offer up anything of interest other than an ability to type a message with one hand while clutching their faux pearls with the other.

No need for anyone to reply to the above, it just gives them the oxygen they crave and takes our eyes off the main event. So please, enough already.

Pyro - I will reply to your last para in a separate post.

Montiburns - sorry I thought I had already shared this link for you. I hope it helps to clarify reporting requirements around accounts, intra-company moves and more with regards to a Cayman Exempted Company.

No sense of irony that the info comes via Mourants!

https://www.mourant.com/news-and-views/guides/cayman-islands-exempted-companies.aspx#:~:text=An%20exempted%20company%20is%20not,correct%20view%20of%20its%20affairs.

kippermanbike - who cares? i focus on the here and now. if you are trying to troll me then just get right to it so we can duke it out. i am too busy to *****foot around.

Njames - Hope is the major, but not the only creditor and the liquidators must follow due process until they are 100% clear that they have exhausted all avenues and can do no more. We are not at that point. There is no deal, at least publicly, that unquestionably puts FRUS / the asset out of harms way. It is just an MoU and we don’t know if its terms have been met in full by the company.

With regard to the MoU, we know FRC missed the original payment date with the GOGC, so I expect this joint motion to kick this case into the long grass was in large part to allow FRC to either meet the second delayed payment date proposed by the GOGC or fail and therefore continue to keep the company and the asset potentially exposed. Also, to deal with the other litigation.

It would be prudent for Hope to postpone the termination of this case until it is known a deal has been properly finalized meaning and all the other threats to the company – and any deal involving him - have been extinguished. Again, another reason this case has been kicked down the road.

Also, info takes time to trickle down to these types of cases and with the court date so far out, I expect the parties are focused on more pressing needs. I expect we will see decisions in the other cases before this one.

Avi8r - The date for FIC v SN is the result of a joint motion for continuance. All such company related cases in which parties have filed similar joint motions have settled. This is a Hope related case (via the liquidators) and we know the other Hope cases have settled.

Just an observation but the liquidators will only continue if they have a chance of recouping something tangible. If the asset of the company is indeed safely parked beyond their reach they might need to reassess their course of action. Thats just a theory so we need to see how that plays out.

YA II v FRC will have a docket schedule once the company appeals, should they chose to do so.

I am sure it's pure coincidence, but FRC v YA has a bit of a whiff of FRC v Mourant about it which quite quickly brought those parties to the settlement table.

ODR1 - You are welcome. Yes there is JY v FRC docketed for May 2024. It's already been revised down by YJ from $50K to $30K and I don't see it as a significant case relative to the others, though of course the sum might be significant to YJ. Nothing has happened in that case since June.

Unresolved cases -

FIC v SN – joint motion to continue to October 2024 (a Hope related case).

FRCC bankruptcy hearing in NYC. This progress of this case will likely be determined by the outcome of FIC v SN. No schedule for this case and no action since early 2022.

In both of the above, it would appear FRUS is protected, probably more so now the GOGC have ratified the assignment and assuming FRC meets its obligations under the MoU.

YA II v FRC – Summary Judgement in favor of YA. FRC have motioned for a new trial which appears to allow for time to mount an appeal. No further action to date.

FRC v YA II – No action since the Original Petition by FRC and the General Denial by YA.

Mourant v FRC Winding Up Petition – To be “extinguished” though I am not sure if we will get to see how. There might just be a joint motion to dismiss if they finally reach another settlement before the docket date.

On 18 November I shared the statement that mentioned that the company is "addressing remaining legal actions".

They have now confirmed that the 18/11 statement does indeed include the recent moves by Mourant. They are actively engaging with Mourant and expect to "extinguish" (their word) this action soon.