Member Info for Looed

WHamBoy - regarding the use of "the company". In following so many cases I just use "the company" to refer to FRC, the parent entity, and to separate it (at least in my head) from other parties such as FIC, FRGC etc. So "the company" is just one of the many entities that need to be followed. Filings and motions always talk in the 3rd person so I think that has rubbed off on me.

I agree it's good news this case has closed. Whilst it was expected given the settlement in the Federal case, it is good to finally get the confirmation. That leaves YA to be dealt with and which the company are very confident they will prevail. In the other major case and if precedent is anything to go by, the settlements in the Hope Federal case should bode well for the FIC v SN case given Hope's role in the case.

Following on from the FRC request for a hearing on the recent YA motion for summary judgement, the docket has changed slightly to accommodate the request with dates now showing as -

04/09 - YA submit their Motion for Summary Judgement

06/10 - Hearing on Trial on Merits

09/10 - Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgement

The parties have settled the case. There is no filing as yet, just the notation on the record that parties advised the court of settlement 25/08.

Recently, YA informed the court that they intend to submit a “Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgement”. The motion is docketed for submission on 4th September. This is the third time YA have sought some kind of default judgement in this case.

The company have now requested an oral hearing on this motion citing “The issues involved are too detailed and too important to both parties to be considered on submission.”

We should find out in a few days if the court takes up this request for an in-person hearing and if it affects the schedule.

Dates as they currently stand –

04/09 – Submission of YA Motion

06/10 – Trial on Merits

WHamBoy - From the slim pickings we can see, we can observe that they have been cooperating. The company already offered to do a deal on this case, as revealed in the Federal case filing. Though M.O. appeared to initially decline that offer we know the parties soon settled the Federal case. Important as this case is, it is the YA II and the FIC v SN case that we need to see some positive action on.

WHamBoy - if the case has settled (as the FRC v MO case did) we might only see a joint motion to dismiss or a motion for continuance if they still haven't reached a deal. Unlike most of the other cases we have been following, the filing history in this case is, for the most part, cooperative between the parties.

Typically, filings are posted on the day or up to 48 hours after the filing date though they can sometimes be posted before the required date. Keep in mind that not every filing is posted on the public record but if the case is settled, I am sure the court will post the news.

Hi Jekyll - sorry for not making it clear, but when I said "award some land" I was referring to some of the so-called "99%" returned lands which are out of the hands of the company.

Hi Lifeishard - The new ambassador does have some form in merging US and EU interests on energy policy.

Block do seem have a good direct relationship with the GOGC and indirectly via their partnership with Georgia Oil & Gas Ltd. OMV Petrom is another O&G company that seem to enjoy a healthy relationship. Let’s not forget the company have also spoken of their now “constructive” relationship with the state agencies.

Given the proximity of Block to the original B12 there might be a case for the GOGC awarding some land to Block if they can successfully expand their own production operations (and if they would want it). Earlier efforts to sell the remaining asset, the "1%", at least those that we can see on the record, failed. For example attempts by the FIC liquidators to sell on / terminate the PSC.

The outgoing ambassador is on a farewell tour and recently gave a wide-ranging interview on bm.ge TV. They have now published the transcript and at the end of the interview the reporters ask about the the incoming ambassador. Whilst these comments / attributes don't automatically refer to FRC, they should certainly help should the company get back to business -

“And the Ambassador Dunnigan is one of our finest diplomats. She’s very experienced, she has a lot of experience in the energy sector which I think will be great for continuing our partnership with Georgia in the sphere of renewables, improving energy efficiency and also reducing Georgia’s dependence on Russia. I think you are getting one of our best. I know she is going to have a wonderful time here just as I have.”

https://bm.ge/en/news/this-country-cannot-be-stopped-us-ambassador-kelly-degnan-sums-up-her-term-in-georgia

Bibzy7 - There are 5 cases on the books in the US and at least two of them need to be resolved.

Those cases are YA II v FRC and FIC v SN.

FIC V SN is a Hope-related case. Hope was for a while (and still might be) the financial backer for the liquidators in Cayman who are also bringing the case in Texas.

The FIC v SN case has now been set for trial in October 2024. You would be right to say that sounds a very long way off. What is important is that post settlement in the Hope cases, the relationships in FIC v SN can be seen to have evolved from adversarial to cooperative. For example, it is only post-Hope settlement that we now see joint motions being filed in this case.

This long continuance should mean the company can focus on other litigation such as the YA case. Outside of the ZM case (and possibly the YA case) none of the multitude of cases that have been followed to date actually made it to trial.

Other cases are Mourant Ozannes v SN which you would assume has been dealt with as part of the settlement in FRC v Mourant Ozannes. We might get clarity on this later this month.

There is a bankruptcy trial involving FRGC which you can also say is Hope related, but there has been no activity since April 2022.

The Yellow Jersey case might be important to YJ but isn’t impactful on the company relative to the other cases.

To date there have been approx 66 filings in this second YA v FRC case and only 5 of them are from the company.

Morals and judgements made in London aside, the debt is “alleged” until the Texas court first recognizes the foreign judgement and then allows for it to be enforced. YA have wasted 3 years of the courts time with pointless filings and ill-formed motions that went nowhere. By obtaining a Trial on Merits the company is accelerating the case, not delaying it. I assume there was no obligation to do so, but FRC gave YA the correct Statute to use.

YA’s new counsel has recently submitted a motion for No-Evidence Summary Judgement in early September which cherry-picks the Statute given to them by FRC.

If it gets that far, the trial in October will be on the merits of the filings of YA, which have, to date, failed to impress the court.

Njames - this is from an FRC filing and seems to form the main part of their argument -

"The procedure for recognition — not enforcement or registration — of a foreign-country judgment differs from the enforcement mechanism of Chapter 35. Recognition of a foreign-country judgment is distinguished from enforcement of that judgment. Because a Texas “forum court” cannot enforce a foreign-country judgment until it is determined that the judgment can or should be given effect, recognition is a mandatory prerequisite to the right to attempt to enforce the foreign- country judgment.

Recognition of a foreign-country judgment is a prerequisite to having the right to pursue enforcement of the judgment of a foreign nation. RESTATEMENT (FOURTH) THE FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES, §482(a). Recognition of a foreign-country judgment requires that a creditor seeking recognition of a foreign-country judgment must always file an action in a court of competent jurisdiction."

WHamBoy – that’s a fair assessment. There are a lot of filings in this case with about 90% of them from YA’s side which include motions for summary judgements, discovery, appointment of receivers and so on, and I don’t see any win for YA to date. They now have new lead attorneys so maybe this is their attempt to turn things around.

I don’t know how long it took to get the UK default judgements processed, but they have been trying for over 3 years to get this resolved in Texas. I think YA might now face the prospect (assuming the company gets its win) of going back to the drawing board and having to start all over again. I think this is why we are seeing YA throwing the kitchen sink at this before the merits of their original approach are discussed in open court.

Let’s see if / how the company files any response.

The merits being challenged relate to the arguments and precedent that YA are relying on to have the UK judgement enforced in Texas, not the judgement itself. In one of the earlier FRC filings I think they lay out the precedents required in Texas that YA should have relied on to have the UK judgement first recognized and then enforceable locally.

Just to clarify – this case is set for in-person trial in early October. This new motion will be formally submitted to the court on 4th September. This is a procedural issue for now and there is no hearing or discussion of the motion on that date.

The court will review the motion in its own time and decide what actions, if any, to take. FRC have the right to ask the court for an oral hearing on the motion.

YA II have filed a "Motion for Traditional and No-Evidence Summary Judgement" which, in short, seems to rehash their previous, and thus far failed, arguments that the Texas court should merely rubber-stamp the UK court decision without the need for a trial on merits that the company requested and which is due to be heard in early October.

This is the second time YA have sought Summary Judgement in the current case. This new motion is on the docket for 4th September.

Ricardo2019 - This is the second attempt by YA II to use the Texas courts to enforce a foreign judgement against the company. YA originally sued the company in the UK courts for unpaid debt and was awarded, in today’s money, US$3.4m which included costs for the original UK trial.

During the first Texas case the original UK judgement was set aside due to a technicality. This resulted in a joint motion to vacate the first Texas case. YA then went back to the UK courts which ultimately reinstated the debt hence the second, current, case in Texas.

YA initiatives in the current case have to date failed. A recent attempt to send in the bailiffs was rejected by the court. The company requested a trial on merits which the court granted and which is scheduled for early October.

It seems Texas has very strict rules when it comes to these types of actions and the company appears confident that this second case does not meet the high bar set by the court.

This case involves the parent company, the same entity that holds our shares. Should YA prevail at court then the company needs to have the cash to settle the debt, offer assets in lieu of payment, or at the extreme, face insolvency if they cannot comply with the decision of the court.

If the company prevails and YA lose, then I suppose YA could refile again at some point. Though that means they have had to go to court twice in the UK and will have tried and failed twice in Texas.

As I read it, if YA lose then there would need to be at least two more trials. One trial for YA to have the foreign judgement recognized by a Texas court and then a second trial to have the judgement enforced. I believe the company is confident it will prevail in the current case because YA, in seeking to enforce the judgement have failed to first have the courts recognize the foreign judgement, so the court has no power to “enforce”.

Thanks folks – one other date to keep in mind is 28th August when the civil court is scheduled to hear a motion in the Mourant v SN case.

You might recall that the FRC v Mourant federal case settled last June. Some filings in the federal case tried to link it to the SN case, so it is possible the civil action may have settled.

Typically, the parties wait until the mandated filing date before they brief the court on any developments, but they do sometimes file ahead of time.

The pre-trial formalities have begun with the filing of some procedural paperwork.

According to the docket, both parties must have completed mediation, completed discovery, and filed their motions by 5th September. The in-person trial is scheduled to begin 6th October 2023.

ZiggyZag – thanks for the clarification and I am glad I asked you about that last part of your earlier message.

Regarding the last part of your last message, I remember the judge (in the ZM trial) asked about the number of shareholders and I believe it was ZM who replied, “2,000 plus” or words to that effect. Whilst ZM was hardly a credible witness, the figure went unchallenged.