Member Info for Looed

Aurora1 - Just to explain what I mean -

It sounds perfectly reasonable and sensible to assume “You would think its a legal obligation” regarding information and updates. FRC is a Cayman Exempted Company (CEC) and an unfortunate (for us) “benefit” of being a CEC is that there is no statutory right for shareholders to be given any information regarding company affairs. This is compounded further by the fact that the company remains unlisted. When the company was listed it at least had to make contact to either pass round the collection plate and / or to comply with AIM statutory reporting requirements.

Sadly, there is no clause in Cayman company law to make a CEC placate disgruntled shareholders unhappy with the level – or lack of - communications.

Aurora1 - you would think there would be, as you say, a legal obligation for the company to engage - but sadly there is not.

Consistent with the previous 5 quarters, the Q3 report declares that Cornerstone earned "less than $5K" lobbying for FRC.

https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2023/Q3/301511701.xml

Hi ZiggyZag - Yes to the first question and I believe the "stay dark" is tied to US-related litigation, mainly the FIC and YA II cases.

ZiggyZag – You did answer your own question when you said I “would have passed any info from them in response onto this board.”

I think this FRUS is more than likely us. I say that because the listing for FRUS on the docket was in English and the name format fully matches the name of the FRC branch (Frontera Resources US LLC). There is a local copy of FRUS, but the name format is slightly different and it is registered in Georgian, not English.

Other than the court listings it does seem impossible to find out what happens during / after these hearings take place.

They also need to resolve the FIC case.

WHamBoy – I think the situation remains the same as JimSlade shared in his message a while back that referenced outstanding litigation. I shared a bit of news from them regarding the YA case a couple of weeks ago and we got a “we are on it” regarding the Cayman registry.

Regarding YA, the YA v FRC case is closed but remains appealable, nothing showing so far on any appeal. In FRC v YA, records show that YA where officially served about 10 days ago.

Typed too fast - administrate oversight should read "administrative oversight"

Thanks for bringing this up. I passed it along and have received the following reply -

"This is an administrate oversight. It will be resolved well before strike-off"

Thanks again.

Earsbern - no problem, I have passed it on.

Lifeishard – best to keep an open mind. Any action outside of a deal with YA – and it seems to me they intend to fight – is going to take time be it an appeal, a new case, a focus on the recent FRC v YA etc.

We don’t know how advantageous / punishing deals made to date have been. However, I believe this is the first time the company has lost a case in Texas post delist. So, if this issue isn’t over as they claim, then we need to see how they handle (and have hopefully well prepared) for this event.

SN needs to fulfill the terms of the Mourant deal by Feb 2024. There is the prickly issue of FIC v SN and all the other litigation big and small. I cannot fathom the amount already spent on court cases and there will be more to come.

Yet still they talk of cleaning up the past and planning for a post-litigation life and restarting operations.

Hopefully we will learn more in the coming days.

Montiburns - I don't recall seeing any PG's in this matter.

MontiBurns - The amount awarded was $3.4m plus interest and costs. The agreement was between YA II and FRC.

I have received a message from the company.

1- The judgement rendered last Friday (in YA v FRC) is not final, the matter is ongoing.

2- The company remains focused on clearing outstanding litigation.

3- In line with the above, the company continues to prepare for its - in their words - “return to operations”.

Another way to see it is that, to date, SJ and Trial on Merits ha e been treated separately with different motions and hearing dates. We need to see if the ruling in the SJ hearing impacts the hearing on Merits.

Lifeishard - at the moment it is unclear with the Trial on Merits still on the docket. But based on the SJ alone, the court has sided with YA and found FRC fully liable.

With multiple motions and dates in play and so close together the courts don't always file in order. I would suggest YA have prevailed until we see motions / appeals that dictate otherwise.

A couple more filings have dropped but there is the potential for overlap and for events to already be obsolete.

Oct 5 - Judge signs a order confirming 9/11/23 as start date for Trial on Merits

Oct 6 - The same judge approves SJ, stating it is a "final judgement disposing of all claims between the parties"

SJ and Trial on Merits have always been treated as separate motions so we need to see if or how FRC respond.

The judge has granted the YA motion for summary judgement against the company. The court accepts the UK default judgement and that the company is locally liable for the judgement amount in full.

The verdict is appealable.

The status of the Trial on Merits in the case is now unclear.

It is impossible to tell from the filings what swayed the court given all previous and similar motions have failed. Though recent filings by YA did adopt the parts of Texas code that FRC had said was needed to have the YA claim recognized and thus enforceable.

We know that YA threw everything at this and only needed one argument to stick, so it’s unfortunate it did so at a hearing instigated by FRC who expected to have this thrown out.

We will have to wait and see if / how the company decide to respond.

Just to clarify the docket dates as they currently show -

6th Oct - hearing on Summary Judgement, FRC have submitted a Proposed Order for the judge to deny the motion.

9th Nov - at the request of the parties, court agrees to this revised date for Trial on Merits.

Looks like the trial date has changed from tomorrow to 9th Nov.