Member Info for Looed

Lifeishard - Dustin Avo was lined up to take over operations in Georgia when ZM was terminated but we then had that "spot of bother" with the courts that put plans on hold. That is the first evidence that I have seen for a long time that he is still connected to the company in one way or another.

That is quite an interesting picture if you take a closer look...

They seem to be attending a few events together, including this one -

🍇 The event took place as part of the GHvino Forum, held in Austin and Houston on November 14 and 16 respectively, with the primary objective of promoting Georgian wine culture in Texas. Special thanks go to the America Georgia Business Council, the Georgia National Wine Agency, and Honorary Consul of Georgia in Texas, Janet Moore, for their efforts in organizing this event.

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=908177344209281&set=pcb.908178897542459

WHamBoy – yes you are reading it more or less correctly. The company will also reimburse the agency for the oil stolen by ZM – “reimburse damages arising out of non-sharing by Frontera of the Petroleum produced from the Contract Area”.

The agency did exactly as requested by the Cayman liquidators but then turned right around and essentially gave “it” back by finally recognizing the assignment from the local operating company to FRUS. FRUS sits under the parent company - FRC – which also holds our shares.

Regarding the outstanding cases, this potentially throws a few spanners in the works as FRUS should sit outside the grasp of the people and companies still trying to extract money from the company.

We don’t yet know if the November 2022 payment deadline was missed through lack of funds or for another reason. The meeting that Cymro1864 has just shared would indicate that relationships are smooth between the company and the state.

Many thanks ODR1 - that is a very good find.

Thanks ODR1 that is very interesting, especially the discussion around FRUS.

Do you have a link to the accounts as I can only see the interims on the GOGC site.

MontiBurns - I believe the request for a new trial (YA v FRC) is to allow the company time to prepare an appeal. The filing for the new trial states it its to "extend the appellate timetable" which I think indicates an appeal to this or a higher court.

Hi Lifeishard – FIC v SN has a trial date of October 2024. There seems to be no new developments in the other cases which are waiting for closure / direction from the court.

Perhaps you are thinking of Mourant v SN? The final settlement in this case states that SN must make another part-payment before 1st December 2023 with the balance due February 2024.

Sorry - more accurate to say the status is a recommendation subject to certain measures -

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-executive-proposes-grant-georgia-eu-candidate-status-2023-11-08/

Georgia has been granted "Candidate" status by the EU subject to fulfillment of certain measures.

Jv123 - seems you have asked and also answered your own question. It is certainly a possibility.

WHamBoy - I know you were asking about this in relation to a potential sale of whatever is left, but you should keep a very open mind to potential outcomes here. Not sure where this "sale" idea comes from but there has been no indication that a sale is under consideration / on the table though you could rightly argue that this type of thing might not be in the public domain.

It is very possible that should they conclude litigation and negotiations we might find out that reality has been staring us in the face all along -

"Frontera Resources Corporation is a privately held independent Houston-based international oil and gas exploration and production company whose strategy is to identify opportunities and operate in emerging markets in Eastern Europe around the Black Sea and the United States."

Thats description is on the website, its how the refer to the company in press releases and is exactly how the company is described in court filings, letters between FRC and state agencies and so on. A sale is not impossible, but nor is it inevitable.

This is the FRC counter-claim, not the original case in which the court found in favor of YA and in which FRC recently motioned the court for a new trial.

In this new, FRC-driven case, YA have filed a General Denial in response to the FRC petition, so kicking the ball back to FRC.

Filing a General Denial is a common tactic and has been used a few times by FRC in cases in which it found itself Defendant.

Lifeishard – quick reply as late night for me.

The recent FRC motion is bare-bones at best but, as I said in my original post revealing this development, perhaps the quoted case is all that is required. We must hope the outside legal counsel know what they are doing in this matter because to date, YA have prevailed.

Either FRC come back and put more meat on the bones, the court deny the request and we move to the appeal process, and / or the company focuses on FRC v YA which is still in its nascent stage.

I think this is (another!) delaying tactic by FRC (as admitted in the original motion) so lets see if the court bites or they have to try something else.

YA have filed their response to the FRC Motion for a new trial and have petitioned the court to quickly deny. They argue that the FRC motion contains no basis for a new trial. Hard to disagree with that unless the quoting of the original case law is good enough.

I expect we will get a quick decision from the court.

WHamBoy - I don't think it has any relevance. Georgia typically scores high on ease of doing business. The UK is one of the main sources of inward investment. Investment in energy is the second highest market of FDI. For sure EU status would be a "nice to have" and would increase some level of integration, but the lack of it it doesn't seem to be pausing investments.

To date I believe Georgia has only fulfilled 3 of the 12 requirements as set out by the EU.

I agree it seems very flimsy but perhaps that is all that is needed to comply with Texas civil code.

FRC have petitioned the court for a new trial stating -

"Defendant now files this Motion for New Trial seeking a new trial in the interest of justice and for the purposes of extending appellate deadlines. See Old Republic Ins. Co. v. Scott, 846 S.W.2d 832, 834 (Tex. 1993) (stating that “[t]he filing of a motion for new trial in order to extend the appellate timetable is a matter of right”)"

Many thanks Jim, I also send a request but I think its as you and seisprocessor have stated.

I think the article that tsbs1 shared is more of a wish list for a Georgian Santa - "we are thinking'..."we will try" etc. I don't see anything specific in it.

I will dig some more and thanks to tsbs1 for sharing.

ZiggyZag – A small but important point. Yes, it would be more than likely that SN would need to cough up the cash should he choose to do so. However, the YA II judgement is against FRC not SN. SN, as a director, will be shielded by the typical indemnities that apply to officers of a Cayman company.