Member Info for Looed

More documents filed (directly / embedded) in the VN case which shed further light on the pre-liquidation period, broadly 2021 to late 2023.

The filings show a pattern of requests for several hundred thousand dollars into Frontera Holdings, with the rationale shifting over time from direct support for FRC via the subsidiary to a focus on meeting legal costs.

In mid-2021, shortly after the ZM trial, SN writes:

“I’ve really been under the gun to support legal challenges that we’ve faced at Frontera… I underestimated the cash call I’ve received for our legal effort and am needing an additional $100k by Friday. Can we amend our promissory note to this effect please? … attached is a snapshot from our current capital raise process for just one of our fields…”

The referenced “snapshot” is a marketing presentation relating to Taribani. It describes Taribani as covering approximately 20,000 acres, refers to the ability to “immediately produce” from five wells drilled or sidetracked by Frontera, and outlines workover and clean-up activity. It also sets out a proposed use of proceeds including 23 new wells and 6 workovers, together with a three-year projection reaching approximately 21,000 boe/d and an estimated EBITDA of $262.3m by Year 3.

Nothing in the filings indicates this cash call or associated fund-raise was accepted or completed.

By end of 2022, SN writes:

“I’m just back from Georgia where we are inching closer to our long-standing objectives… Looks like I’ve got a liquidity crisis as a result of feeding Frontera… and need to explore some thoughts on how to bridge through…”

From early-2023 onwards, the filings show fund managers and advisers pursuing payment as funds became depleted, alongside attempts to generate cash through asset sales, insurance policies and will-related proceeds, none of which appear to materially change the “liquidity crisis”. Ultimately, the relationship between SN and various advisers appears to end with accounts overdrawn and invoices unpaid.

SN has not, as far as the filings show, responded to the TXN Energy discovery request. When he does, it may clarify the timeline and the transition from funding/supporting FRC-related activity to the 'activation' of the entity now known as TXN Energy.

As the sleuthing comes to an end, I wish to give a public shout out to those who worked anonymously yet diligently behind the scenes. Whether throughout this long journey or for only a part of it, please accept my sincere thanks. Your contributions have been outstanding – consistently focused on the facts while also trying to hold certain parties to account. Any company would be fortunate to have you as an active shareholder. It has not ended as we would have wished, but I am in no doubt we pursued this as far as we could. As the saying goes, you cannot win them all.

Lifeishard — I will break my earlier decision not to respond, purely for clarity’s sake.

You’ve once again brought up the tired “you’ve gone cold” claim. To be clear, I have responded to your queries on the messaging from September 2024 multiple times, most recently on 15 August and again on 27 September of 2025.

Earlier in 2025, in light of developments from Deloitte and others, I decided to change my posting strategy. In direct response to one of your questions, I outlined this change stating that “I will continue to share any news I find, good or bad, via 3rd parties.” That is exactly what I have done. For example, my recent replies to you are based on verifiable 3rd party sources, external reporting and so on.

Given that context, I am unclear as to why you remain confused. My position has already been laid in black and white. Had anything been unclear at the time, the obvious step would have been to simply ask for clarification, not to retroactively and repeatedly question what has already been explained.

Now, that hopefully clarifies and concludes this part of the chat.

Hi Life, my last comment on this.

You say "A letter thanking them does not come across as no contact has been made", but you are aware that the letter was written on behalf of, and in support of, TXN Energy, so even if your claim that "Just because no news says no contact, doesn’t mean it’s so" then any contact has been related to TXN Energy.

Life – you are once again twisting the timelines.

As already explained, Senator Mullin stated last September that “it has been between about 18 months and 24 months since he’s had contact with the Texas firm.” Based solely on your own logic, that timeframe overlaps directly with when Vicky Nicandros raised her concerns, so it reasonable to conclude that Mullin maintained distance because of the VN case, not in spite of it.

Regarding SN’s legal representation, he still has legal representation in the Mourant case (now on appeal). However, in the VN case, he has yet to notify the court of who will represent him following the withdrawal of his previous legal team.

MWM comments are here - https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5488713-mullin-blocks-georgia-sanctions-act/

Monti – just to clarify, we don’t receive “open press releases” from TXN etc. That’s not how the information came out.

The details about TXN originated from a Reuters investigative report, which was based on a leaked letter that had not been made public at the time of the original reporting. What followed was secondary reporting, as the article was rehashed across multiple platforms. But the original source remains the leaked letter and Reuters reporting, not any formal or transparent public announcement.

As for the point about SN’s sister: if you read the allegations in full, you’ll see that Steve is accused of acting without regard to her interests, failing to honor trust-related agreements, and if true then quite possibly misrepresenting his true shareholding in FRC.

Cazbraz – the “delaying tactics” refer to SN acting personally in his own interest.

The Mourant case is based on a personal guarantee SN gave for the debt that ultimately caused FRC’s liquidation. He isn’t disputing the debt itself, but is instead using procedural steps to delay enforcement of the debt.

Although Deloitte are aware of the case (as both parties are FRC creditors), they are proceeding with the liquidation as detailed in their various statements and updates.

SN has now filed a Notice of Appeal in the civil case brought by Mourant. This case involves the unpaid legal fees which resulted in the liquidation of FRC.

Having possibly failed in his earlier motion for a new trial in this matter, SN is asking the Texas Court of Appeals to review the court’s decision recognizing and enforcing the Cayman Islands debt judgment.

The debt has already been deemed valid by the Cayman Grand Court and the Harris County court, so I assume this is another delaying tactic.

No problem WhamBoy, these AI churn machines are popping up everywhere.

In other news, SN has recently fired his legal team in the Vicky case and intends to engage new counsel. Such a move is not unheard of but is unusual at this stage of discovery.

Thanks WHamBoy — the site itself flags the piece as AI-generated, so its possible that more AI-spun repackages of it popping up and being presented as new / news.

Ok, thanks.

Keysersoze - can you check the link you provided as I cannot see the statement re date.

Keysersoze – seems the AI can’t provide a primary link, and it’s now hedging with “if indeed it was scheduled as you suggest”, which effectively shifts the original claim onto you rather than AI or any court record. That, in itself, casts doubt on the accuracy of the hearing details.

On that basis, I’d treat the date/time/location as unverified. If it’s genuinely citing Cayman records, it should be able to point to them with links.

Hi keysersoze - Can you share the source for this info? It reads a like an AI generated answer. If it is from AI, can you ask it to recheck the details once again and to provide a verifiable link. It should be able to do that given it is presenting very specific info (date, place etc.) rather than more general and generic "AI chat" that pulls from multiple sources, thanks.

Monti - sorry for the late reply. SN has (or had) always managed to maintain, for want for a better term, robust relationships with key players at the state agencies regardless of the noise elsewhere.

Deloitte have already confirmed they control the (albeit incomplete) share registry.

Plaintiff (VN) has filed an amended petition and supporting exhibits. FRC is again identified as a recipient of trust funds, described as loans approved without proper trustee oversight or consent. Exhibits also include various articles referencing TXN Energy. Despite the many pages of new filings, the allegations are best summed up by this statement – “Plaintiff alleges that her brother, Mr. Nicandros, absconded with the entirety of their family fortune, through a series of loans to his perpetually insolvent company (or group of companies), Frontera” (from Plaintiff’s Reply to SN et al, filed 2nd Dec).

Cazbraz - Now that we can see the 30 September 2025 letter, it is plainly on TXN Energy letterhead, signed by SN as TXN’s CEO, asks members of Congress to act in a way that benefits TXN, speaks of TXN’s “planned future investments” in Georgia, and says nothing about FRC, its creditors or shareholders, or any JOL/Court plan. (though the letter does recast FRC’s past as if it was TXN’s).

Per Deloitte’s First Report (p.17), “Mr Nicandros also indicated to the Liquidators that he would provide funding to support the costs of the liquidation, but no such funding has been provided as of the date of this report.”

Consistent with that, Deloitte’s 26 September 2025 statement reads: “As the liquidation is unfunded, any further steps by the Liquidators will be limited to those necessary to effect the dissolution of the Company.”

It would seem SN is no longer engaged with the liquidation of FRC and is instead actively focusing resources on his personal litigation and on promoting TXN Energy.

I expect that any direct communication will be via Deloitte, or whatever info the sleuths manage to turn up.

Pt 2

3 Georgia has a strategic partner in a strategic geography

Georgia remains a key U.S. ally at the crossroads of Europe and Asia. Its government has publicly expressed strong support for deepening ties with the United States based on shared policies and values. Your vote affirmed the importance of maintaining this partnership and ensuring that U.S. engagement in the South Caucasus continues to advance stability and counter Russian interference.

4 Keeping the focus on Russia

The amendment shifts attention away from the true threat - Russia's continued occupation of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, representing 20% of Georgia's sovereign territory - and risks offering Russia an easy victory. For decades, Congress has spoken with one voice in defense of Georgia's sovereignty against Russian aggression. Your no vote highlights the importance of opposing this occupation without distraction.

As H.R. 3500 proceeds to the floor and ultimately to conference, I respectfully ask you to please seek ways to strike this amendment from the final version of the bill. The State Department's authorisation should advance America's values and interests in a way that strengthens the Trump Administration's foreign policy agenda, supports U.S. business abroad, and reinforces our ability to stand with Georgia as a strategic partner in a strategic geography.

I have never been more optimistic about Georgia's future under the current leadership and its ability to reforge a close and strategic alliance for the benefit of U.S. national security, European regional security, as well as U.S. foreign direct investment and U.S.-Georgia trade relations. Leaving this amendment in place would not only stand as a contradiction to these shared goals, but also to carry harmful implications given that it rests on a factually misinformed premise.

Thank you again for your important leadership in opposing the Wilson Amendment. Please know that your efforts are valued by American businesses like ours, as well as by partners and allies who look to the United States for consistency and support. My company remains committed to investing in Georgia and supporting a constructive U.S.-Georgia partnership.

With appreciation,

Steve C. Nicandros

Chairman & Chief Executive Officer

TXN Energy Holdings Inc.

Part 1 of 2

TXNEnergy

September 30. 2025

Re: Congressman Wilson’s Amendment #74 to Section 313(c) of H.R. 5300

As a US business with significant historical and planned future investments in the country of Georgia, I am writing to express my appreciation of your recent vote against the amendment to section 313 (c) of H.R. 5300, recently offered in committee by Congressman Joe Wilson, which would prohibit U.S. recognition of Georgia's current democratically elected government. This proposed amendment rests on a factually misinformed premise about the legitimacy of Georgia's leadership.

My company has been working in Georgia since 1997, building partnerships, creating jobs, and investing in the country's economic future - while at the same time supporting job creation, innovation, and economic growth here in the United States as a direct result of our work in Georgia. I sincerely appreciate your opposition to the amendment and hope that it can still be removed from the final bill.

Your recent vote against Congressman Wilson's Amendment #74 to section 313 (c) of H.R, 5300, taken during the House Foreign Affairs Committee's markup of the State Department reauthorization bills on September 17 - 18, 2025, sends a clear message in support of historically close US/Georgia relations.

It was unfortunate that the amendment passed with the leadership of all twenty-three Democrat Members who were joined by only eleven of the twenty-eight Republicans on the Foreign Affairs Committee. This minority of Republicans joined with Democrats in contradiction of the recommendation of Chairman Brian Mast. Unfortunately, this outcome serves to perpetuate progressive Biden-era foreign policy towards Georgia's conservative government, which needlessly damaged relations with our long-standing, strategic ally.

As the bill advances to the floor and ultimately through conference, I respectfully ask that you please consider ways to strike this amendment from the final version of H.R. 5300, given the contradiction and implication it carries for the Trump Administration's foreign policy agenda and U.S. business interests.

Why Your “No” Vote Mattered.

1 Factually misinformed premise - Respecting democracy

Georgia's current government was democratically elected in October 2024. The Georgian Dream party won a majority of 84 seats in Parliament, while opposition parties collectively won 66. The election was certified, a recount confirmed the results, and the international observers (OSCE/ODIHR) affirmed election the results. To legislate non-recognition of this outcome would deny the democratic process itself.

2 Protecting U.S. business and economic stability

For companies like ours that employ people and invest in Georgia, stable bilateral relations are critical. Declaring Georgia's sitting government illegitimate would risk undermining contracts, regulatory frameworks, and investor confidence - creating uncertainty not only in Georgia but also a

Thanks cymro1864, thats two great finds.

Whilst the article is speculative, I suggest folks focus more on the video. This is the first time we have seen the SN letter and we can see it is clearly signed on behalf of TXN Energy. For the eagle eyed amongst you - there is an interesting nugget of info at the 0:09 second time stamp.

Recent court filings, as part of named party discovery, show that at least $15 million was funneled into FRC between 2010 and 2016. The funds appear to have originated from the Nicandros family trust controlled by SN.

Smaller payments were also made (from 2021 onwards) to an entity listed as Frontera Holdings. The filings don’t specify which Frontera Holdings this refers to, it may be an FRC-linked vehicle, or it may relate to a separate entity that later evolved into TXN Energy, the company now publicly associated with SN.

These filings do not (yet) allege fraud related to the payments. The current focus remains on breach of fiduciary duty, governance failures, and Vicky’s exclusion from trust oversight.

Discovery also acknowledges that certain parties failed to inform Vicky of her mother’s death, a key allegation in the original petition.