RE: FIC v SN - Joint Motion for Continuance to Oct 202428 Jun 2023 06:49
To clarify the differences between the recently settled cases and this one, as stated in a recent FIC v SN filing
The Cali case (now settled) = “FRC and FIC initiated the California Litigation, seeking ex parte injunctive relief (nearly identical to the relief requested, and ultimately denied, in the Cayman Islands action) to prevent OMF, Outrider Onshore, LP (“Onshore”), and Hope from exercising remedies on behalf of the debtholders against the Frontera group of entities.”
The Texas case (now settled) = “OMF filed the Texas Litigation against defendants Nicandros and Mamulaishvili for breach of their Individual Guaranties. Specifically, OMF alleges that following the Event of Default, Nicandros and Mamulaishvili were obligated to turn over their Pledged Shares or otherwise compensate OMF for its losses as required by the Individual Guaranties. OMF contends that it made demand for possession of the Pledged Shares, but Defendants have not provided them such possession.”
The current case - “FIC and FRGC, by and through David Griffin and Andrew Morrison in their capacities as Plaintiffs’ duly-appointed Joint Official Liquidators, filed this case against Defendants for breach of fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiffs. Certain actions by Defendants while serving as Officers and Directors of Plaintiffs give rise to the claims asserted herein. Such actions, and the attendant breach of fiduciary duties, are materially (or completely) distinct from the California Litigation and the Texas Litigation, and it is not reasonably foreseeable (and likely not conceivable) that a ruling in either case would impact this proceeding.”
And
“While there exists some overlapping factual background between the pending actions, it is clear that the subject matter at issue with respect to the causes of action greatly varies. In the California Litigation, the facts and circumstances underlying actions taken by Hope during his tenure as a Director of FRC are at issue. In contrast, the Texas Litigation involves the sole issue of whether Nicandros and Mamulaishvili breached their Individual Guaranties executed in favor of noteholder OMF, which is not a party to the California Litigation or this action. Finally, the subject of the present case relates to actions taken by Nicandros and Mamulaishvili as Directors and Officers of FRC and its affiliated entities.”
Much of the original petition in this case is focused on the actions of ZM and the Green Capital contract. This case was launched at around the midway point of the ZM trial, so before the court ruled that ZM was a crook and the Green Capital contract a fabrication. The liquidators based their original findings (in Cayman) almost exclusively on the words of ZM. Hopefully that means both sides are now cooperating to revisit this ‘evidence’.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
