Member Info for Looed

Thanks Baramara - that sounds feasible. Lets see what gets filed and hopefully explains what went on.

Ziggy – I should have added that their message was in response to a message I sent referencing Hope-related cases and specifically, the Motion for Continuance in FIC v SN. I stated they cannot leave shareholders thinking “radio silence” will continue for at least another year nor give the impression that legal matters had now ground to a halt.

WHamBoy - just to play devils advocate, it could also mean they had a bit of a wobble on Monday. The hearing to appoint receiver did take place (it's recorded on the website as "hearing held UA" but no idea what "UA" means) but nothing filed thus far. Even if there was a wobble, it's the Hope-related cases that are the main events. I will keep checking the YA case file and hopefully I can report a 'no wobble' decision soon.

You are right though, a lot of time money and effort continues to be poured into this.

Ziggy - they refer to a couple of issues (same as Jims message) which I take to mean litigation, as most of my discussions with them revolve around those issues. We know there are still two Hope-related cases out there whereas YA II and YJ are of lesser consequence. Thats also what I get from the message that Jim kindly shared.

Time is always relative in litigation (as we have seen! ) but they have now narrowed things down by referencing a couple of major issues remaining "as it unburdens itself of litigation" (as per Jim's post) rather than the more generic terms of the past i.e. "forward progress".

There are a number of hearings, motions etc. in the works right now. This is just my opinion, but given the timing of these messages, I hope they are letting us know work is ongoing behind the scenes despite the timetables of some of the motions before court.

They know we are watching how these cases play out and will be immediately knocking on their door as the cases progress.

I posted before seeing the message from JimSlade - basically saying the same thing. Well done Jim!

They remain focused on clearing the remaining litigation (but not all of it, some is inconsequential) and then focusing on the future. The good news is they expect to clear this litigation in the very near future.

Let's hope they are right!

You can say this is "same old, same old" (it is) but it is consistent with their earlier messaging. I will keep at them for more news.

It would seem the hearing on sending in the bailiffs did indeed take place on 10/07 as YA II lodged more filings in support of their motion prior to the case being heard. So I expect we will see a judgement on this soon.

The YA motions were filed 07/07 but have only just been uploaded to the public record.

Regarding support and pressure from Uncle Sam and money / lobbying.

I think the last press statement from the company was end October 2021 which stated “Frontera looks forward to continued cooperation with the Government of Georgia and, in doing so, strengthening U.S./Georgia trade relations. It is our goal to be an example of successful U.S. investment in Georgia and, by doing so, encourage more U.S. companies to consider opportunities in Georgia for their next investment location.”

Q1 2022 was the last quarter that a significant amount was spent on lobbying. There might be a connection, or it might just be coincidence but the Final Judgement in the ZM case came towards the end of Q1 2022.

Q2 2022 onwards saw almost no spending on lobbying*. Cornerstone / TN remain the lobbyists for FRC as they must file a termination notice if the relationship ends. The Q2 2023 report should be out in a couple of weeks.

The total declared amount on lobbying is just shy of $1.2m (2017 – Q1 2022), peaking in 2020-2021 when at least $640K was spent.

*Declared amounts do not include any spending “lobbying state governments or other legal work” as per ProRepublica. So, we may never know the full and final figure, and spending might still be ongoing but does not have to be reported.

I wouldn't get too hung up on a single word. It would be very irresponsible for me to say this is a sure fire winner without anything of substance to back that up.

Slim just means it is hard to see a deal happening (today) until the company successfully cross off most / all the outstanding issues which they need to address. We know some of these issues that prevent a deal but we don't know to what extent they have already been addressed. For example, the parties will need to agree terms with the GOGC who want payment from the arbitration award in advance of any deal ($6m+). So, "slim chance" of a deal until that type of issue is resolved. SN stated they had funding of $100m, so on paper that should cover that sort of thing, but we need to see evidence that has happened to be sure.

If that payment is a red line for the GOGC, then it needs dealt with before we can move forward. I only meant there is slim chance of a deal until all this type of stuff is dealt with. Hope that makes sense.

WHamBoy - It’s quite hard to answer that simple question.

Best way to think of it is we lost the lost in the ZM conversion, we got it back, but it was in tatters, since then the company has focused on litigation. It patched up its relations with the GG, the GOGC offered the possibility of a deal / olive branch post litigation, and we must be pretty close to that post litigation window. But those warm words were exchanged quite some time ago, so we have to hope that remains the case. On the flip slide we haven’t seen anything to contradict what had been said.

The major (US) litigation is settled. FIC has been kicked down the road, hopefully to enable a deal or, if such a thing is possible, further isolate the company from the liquidators. YAII seems procedural more than anything else, and that is in court today.

What we haven’t seen post-Hope is movement in Georgia. There doesn’t appear to be an operating company, no staff or infrastructure, no announcement on a PSC. The only action in Georgia is more litigation with FRUS v ZM and whatever that might be about. FRC cannot continue to be a litigation-focused company now most of the litigation seems to be out of the way.

So whatever they have, I think they are going to have to show their hand soon else the other parties who have sat on the sidelines will move on.

Tsbs1 – saying you won’t post any more is my party trick!

It is wrong to say I “don’t like you”. You did annoy me a while back by inferring something untoward about the translation fund. That was reckless as it is something I take very seriously. You have no idea the time and negotiation a translation takes, and I have done almost 60 of them.

I do agree I don’t have a sense of humor, at least here. That is because I am 100% intent on holding these mutha tuckers to account. I am laser focused on pushing these people to take responsibility, to fight to the death for us, and never, ever forget we are watching every single thing they are doing.

As the person who had to shake them out of covid-slumber until they were aware of what ZM was up to I know how docile (to be polite) they can be.

You say “There is simply no reason for the company to address it shareholders and they don’t, that tells you everything you need to know about these crooks and what the future holds”

People think sleuthing is just about informing the community on what is / might be going on. Actually, sleuthing has two functions as it also lets them know we are watching every step / mis-step they take.

You say you have no interest in finding out info on the company. That’s fine. But please keep in mind there are people working tirelessly behind the scenes to try and drag this company back from the brink for the collective benefit of all shareholders. The chances are slim, but there is still a chance.

But we are mere PI’s. Still, we brought down ZM, enabled them to settle with Hope, so we wait and see if and how they repay those favors. You should at least stick around for that.

Just to clarify again, as the docket list has been updated

10/07 08:00 Motion to hear Withdrawal of Attorney (meaning the law firm that is now designated lead counsel will be the sole legal rep for YAII)

10/07 15:00 Motion to Appoint Receiver, FRC have already filed a proposed Order referencing this date for the judge to sign denying the Motion, so it seems reasonable to assume this is the real date to hear this motion.

Still showing -

14/08 15:00 Motion to Appoint Receiver, but this seems a duplicate of the hearing set for 10/07.

FRC's main opposition to the Motion on sending in the bailiffs is that it presumes the court has already found in favour of YA II, but that is not possible given the case is still in progress. We should get to see how the judge decides a few days after the hearing. As is typical with FRC, don't rule out the possibility for a last minute continuance!

Thanks lifeishard. You might be doing this already but if time permits and you do some searching, remember to click on tools and set the timeframe as "last 24 hours" which helps avoid a lot of the repetitive articles that pop up without the filter.

Nogamble - good spot - I copied the US date and forgot to convert so it is as WHamBoy reposted - 10/07 meaning Monday US time.

Looks like the next hearing is set for 10/07 as FRC have proposed a motion to dismiss the YA II action to send in the receivers. This also means the court accepted the date hear the motion proposed by YA and rejected the date proposed by FRC.

Thanks Lifeishard - every bit helps as we try to figure out the big picture. It is so easy / lazy to sit on the sidelines and pour scorn on the initiative and effort of others yet here they are, day after day, desperate for news they themselves have neither the initiative nor intelligence to find themselves. Keep up the good work and don’t let the pettiness of others grind you down.

It seems it is impossible to access court related documents in Georgia via the translator or directly.

I emailed the city court asking if the court was open to the public and if records were available. In reply I was told to communicate using official documentation (without them providing the document or any link to the “official documentation”), to make the request in Georgian and to provide proof of I.D., address etc. The message ended saying that even after all that there would be no guarantee of a reply even to my very basic question.

This article discusses the issue of public access to information - https://courtwatch.ge/en/articles/public-info-difficulties/

Thanks toatie, will do.

I believe the fund has £258 remaining and I am holding £9.93 in credit.

The translator had previously advised that court records are sealed and that cases often use initials to hide the parties involved. I expect that applies to criminal cases and I assume this case is a civil case given some of the parties are named. I will ask if civil cases are handled differently and if we can access records.

The court website doesn't seem to offer an easy "search our records" function but lets see how the translator replies.

We typically have to rely on statements from the Prosecutors Office or updates to the business registry to find out about court decsions

Nice find cymro1864.

Although there is (or was) a fake company with a similar name, based on the layout in the court listing I think this is the US company. The Kishmaria's have previously represented ZM and Green Capital. As is typical with these local cases, it is difficult to know who is suing who or to get details of the case.