Member Info for Looed

And it is divisive to talk about “them and us” and “selected shareholders” that perpetuates the unrest you keep harping on about. You presumably come here for information about the company but try to sow seeds of dissent by complaining about the information gathering from which you benefit. Bizarre.

What does “selected shareholders” even mean – they put our names in a hat and some got lucky? Again, you try to create division.

The company did not proactively “exclude” you. It is merely that you did not (assuming you tried to) present yourself as a resource that could be useful at various points in time and which could have resulted in some degree of reciprocity.

A cold, calculating, corporate entity - especially one that is a Caymans Exempt entity - isn’t going to crack because of a few people frothing and foaming on a BB.

Lets end this discussion there.

So, no plan of action that I can see.

The company has already released a number of formal statements in the press which include statements on Outrider, ZM and its relations with the GG and its engagement in Georgia. I am sorry that those formal releases don’t fit whatever bespoke messaging delivery service you prefer.

The fact that a few shareholders have managed to penetrate the company iron curtain, who do what they can to hold on to these tenuous relationships, and pass on whatever they can here has no bearing on the decision by the company to hold off on direct comms until a time of their choosing.

I have lost count of the number of times I see “any news” and then endless complaining when I get some. It is self-defeating to take the efforts of those with an “in” and use said efforts as a way to bash the company. Why would anyone share anything?

Complain away about direct comms but don’t close the door on the few who are doing all they can to get something from the company and who occasionally succeed.

Avi8r – that did make me chuckle.

Ah, the old “time we did something” call to arms is back. You are so angry and outraged at the lack of comms that you –

1 – gave up trying, and instead,

2 – expect others to do the “something” for you based on some vague suggestion.

What does your idea of “something” mean? What concrete proposals and course of action(s) are you suggesting? Are you willing to take charge of these initiatives?

No? Easier to get shady with the people who didn’t give up and are actually doing the “something” you yourself aren’t willing to do.

I have previously explained why they talk to me. It is ridiculous to think they only talk to one shareholder (we already know that isn’t the case as another holder kindly shares their messaging). This BB represents but a small % of shareholders.

Attack and complain all you want about the company but leave me out of it.

Thanks ZyDer / Ziggy

If news is related to court dates it might be a few weeks before we hear anything new.

In some “sort of” related news – figures just released show the GG / GD spent US$1.9m on lobbying in 2021. US$320K was spent lobbying for FRC. This was the time of the senator’s letters and similar moves to support the company.

The filings state the GG / GD money was spent lobbying “to strengthen bilateral relations on behalf of the foreign principal…and direct foreign investment in Georgia”

Wise words from Abkaz that we should be suspicious of unverified rumours. I also expect thats the first time the words "Abkaz" and "wise" have appeared in the same sentence.

I see that poster never followed through on an earlier promise to start a "Looed Beer Fund". Pity as its almost 5pm for me and i could sink a cold one right now. More so after a brief review of its tedious posting history.

In addition to settling the outstanding amounts from the award, the company must also satisfy the GOGC that it has the technical and financial ability to meet its obligations under any new contract.

Just to add that tot all the costs went against the company and the GOGC were found liable for some costs as well.

In addition, both parties were supposed to pay EUR500K each in upfront costs. In the end the company put in EUR250K with the GOGC paying in the balance EUR250K on the company's behalf. That repayment to the GOGC is included in the $5.7m

SA17 - the total amount is a minimum of US$5.7m which comprised of six penalties awarded in either GEL / EUR / US$. This

amount does not include an interest charge levied on the returned lands, charged from the date of the award to the date the lands are returned to the GOGC.

The company was represented at the Arbitration by FRGC (Resp. 1) and FRUS (Resp.2)

From the $5.7m, Resp. 1 is responsible for $293K plus the interest on the returned lands, and the balance of all the other amounts are due "jointly and severally", which means they don't care which party pays, but pay they must.

We don't know what amount the company might have already paid off either directly or via the GOGC working the fields.

You can go back to end 2020 and find statements from the GG discussing the need to resolve court cases as a prerequisite for talks. This statement was made by the then-Georgian Finance Minister in relation to Outrider who had appealed to the GG for the rights to B12:

“We know, in general, there are problems with lenders and there are some disputes. ...we will wait for the dispute between them to be resolved. If something is imposed on the state of Georgia, we will, of course, fulfill it. However, I think that part of the license will remain at the discretion of the Georgian government. My opinion is this. We will judge how this trial and dispute will end, including the results. The government will make the decision that is most optimal and acceptable for the economy. We can not and will not transfer assets and land to compensate someone…. The dispute needs to be resolved and we need to look at the issue from a different perspective.”

ZM launched his court case in Jan 2021. In June 2021 the company was granted its Temporary Injunction and in August 2021 the company filed a Motion for Contempt.

In August 2021 the then-Georgian Economy Minister, talking about ZM (and taking a swipe at the ZM-enabling opposition), who had been very ‘vocal’ in the local media and in promoting his illegal conversion, said:

“(The state agencies) really had an arbitration dispute with the American "Frontera". Since then we have been cooperating quite constructively. One of our main demands is for Frontera to take into account amounts owed to the employeed people. In general, “Frontera” is important for us as an American business and, I am sure, very soon we will reach a mutual agreement. As for the false information spread today, I would like to call on the media channels that spread such unverified information so quickly, to check who their respondents are, so that they do not find themselves in the same awkward situation as they are today. Because American “Frontera” has made a statement that the gentlemen who seem to be speaking on behalf of this company do not represent this company at all.”

In October 2021 the company addressed one the main demands mentioned above:

“Going forward, Frontera intends to cooperate with local stakeholders, employees and contractors to remedy any damages that were inflicted by Mr. Mamulaishvili and his affiliates.” which has perhaps been remedied in part by the GOGC working the fields.

We now appear to be close to resolving the relevant litigations which is consistent with the above historical statements and more recent messaging on comms and updates.

The company is prohibited from operating in Georgia. The Enforcement Agency initially allowed the state agencies to operate the lands to offset debts and maintain the fields, and the agency continues to operate the fields as confirmed by the head of the GOGC in Jan 2023:-

"Frontera returned 99% of the license block according to the international arbitration order. It has 1% remaining where the Oil and Gas Corporation operates.

The local company of “Frontera” is in liquidation mode. As the liquidation process is underway, and not to deteriorate the economic situation and not to spill the oil, this oil is managed by the state itself. However, at the same time, we are negotiating with the American management of “Frontera", which has a desire to continue working here, but with the condition of fulfilling the terms that were put forward by the arbitration, because the amount has to be paid. So there is an opportunity for” Frontera " to return. If this does not happen, the state will continue to work there.”

(edited from translation #59)

Consistent with the last 3 quarters, less than US$5K spend on lobbying on Q2

https://disclosurespreview.house.gov/ld/ldxmlrelease/2023/Q2/301478759.xml

The amount YA II are trying to enforce is the original award of £2.5m which excludes the costs involved in the current litigation. This is the second time YA II have tried to enforce this via the Texas courts.

This case isn’t only about the amount owed. This case is an attempt by YA II to have the judgement recognized in Texas.

FRC state in their motion “Before the judgment of a foreign country is entitled to be enforced in Texas, it must first be granted recognition by a Texas court…..Texas has established a procedure — a mandatory procedure — for determining whether the judgment of another nation should be granted”

YA II seem to be struggling to obtain the required “recognition” from the courts. Should the recognition be granted, then it becomes about the money.

The attempt to appoint receivers by YA II could be seen as a move to try and work around this lack of recognition and their ability to obtain it, which obviously failed in court. It is FRC that motioned for and was granted a trial on merits and as I shared, they seem confident they will prevail at trial, presumably should it get that far.

Whobuys - see the message from the company that JimSlade shared 11 Jul 2023 16:29 and the messages following on from that. YA II is one factor, not the only factor.

Federal case -

FRCC & David Griffin Bankruptcy Proceedings – No activity since April 2022.

Harris County Civil cases -

Mourant Ozannes v SN –Trial on Merits set for 28/08/23.

YA II v FRC – Trial on Merits set for 06/10/23

FIC v SN – Trial on Merits set for 10/07/24

Yellow Jersey v FRC – Trial on Merits set for 13/05/24.

Meaning of Trial on Merits – “The phrase “on the merits” refers to a case whose decision rests upon the law as it applied to the particular evidence and facts presented in the case. This is in opposition to cases whose decisions rest upon procedural grounds. The distinction between decisions that rest on the merits rather than on procedural grounds is important because a decision on the merits is considered final and is thus bound by res judicata. If a decision is bound by res judicata, the parties involved in the case may not later raise those same claims in a subsequent case. Instead, a party that disagrees with the decision must appeal the decision, file a motion for a new trial, or a motion to reconsider”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/on_the_merits

Data on the Texas court website shows how civil cases are typically resolved with relatively few cases ending up at trial -

Dismissed by Plaintiff 41%

Agreed Judgment 16%

Default Judgment 14%

All Other Dispositions 12%

Bench Trial 8%

Dismissed Want of Prosecution 7%

Summary Judgment 2%

Jury/Directed Verdict 0.1%

The case is now designated "trial ready" with discovery due early September and, as previously advised, the trial set for 6/10/23.

The YA II motion to appoint receivers does indeed appear to have been defeated and, as requested by the company, the court has set the date of 06/10/23 to hear its Motion for Trial on Merits.

Dulwichman - I used quotation marks as I was directly quoting from the company message that JimSlade recently shared with us. I re-checked my message thread as they also reference a couple of litigation matters that need dealing with. As you say, seems they are laying a pathway for when we can expect improved comms.

As expected, the court has granted this motion. The signed order isn't showing as yet so we don't know if the judge made any additional remarks to the proposed timeline.

We have seen other cases in which opposing parties come together to kick things down the road to allow for the possibility of alternate solutions.

Baramara – it appears “UA”, at least in this instance, means “under advisement”, which I think is much better for us than unauthorized absence (see below). Hope you agree and thanks again for your help.

I have more news that I can share from the company.

In the YA II v FRC case, the judge heard the YA II Motion to Appoint Receivers. The court declined to rule in favor of YA II and took the case “under advisement” asking the company to file further motions in support of their position. The company believes they prevailed at court, the case will be set for trial (as previously requested by the company) and they are confident they will go on to prevail at trial.

Further, I can confirm that this case is one of the “couple of outstanding matters….(that) hinder our ability to discuss” (cropped from Jim’s message from the company).

That’s the end of the update.

I think it is a small yet significant admission as we can now link the release of information to specific cases, rather than rely on the vague generalized “news soon” type comments of the past.

Let’s see if further filings support the company position on the recent hearing.

I can understand that some might see this update as yet more delay while we wait for another trial. That is one way to look at things, but certainly not the only way.

Purely an observation, but except for the ZM case, none of the cases we have been following have actually gone to trial. These seemingly never-ending, intractable cases suddenly seem to find a way to settle.

Baramara - I don't think so as that particular case is YA II v FRC, a corporate level case so ZM isn't a named party. The case is related to the enforcement of a foreign judgement against the company. ZM / SN might well have played a role in the events related to the case, but its the company that is being sued.