Member Info for Looed

The latest Cayman Gazette has been published and includes companies struck off as of 31 October 2025. FRC is not listed which is consistent with the process Deloitte outlined in their late-September update.

SN has filed objections in both cases based on procedural grounds.

In the Mourant case, he argues he was denied a fair trial.

In the Vicky case, he argues that an attempt at third-party discovery should stop because the dispute has been compelled to arbitration.

In short, SN claims that he is not being given a “fair chance,” and in the Mourant case in particular, he focuses on alleged procedural defects as a way to delay the proceedings rather than address the underlying merits of the case.

These cases involve SN in a personal capacity and are not directly connected to FRC. The only reason they’re being monitored is to see whether any filings might indirectly shed light on FRC-related matters. Going forward, I will provide updates if something emerges along those lines.

Sycric - one more thing I forgot to add: the JOLs have to set out the full group structure in their reporting. On p. 8 of the First Report, FRC is shown as the holding company, with the FRC subsidiaries listed beneath it in the structure/family-tree chart that follows.

The journalist read SN’s letter and assumed that because it mentioned “TXN” and his working in Georgia, TXN had been operating there the whole time. He told me this directly. It’s an easy, but wrong, assumption. I sent him some background so he has a better idea of what actually happened. The SN letter itself hasn’t been made public (as the article notes), but without the article we wouldn’t know anything about SN’s new, separate venture.

Sycric — my take is the switch to “TXN” was to distance it from Frontera branding. I’ve never seen credible evidence of a holding company above FRC; and even if one existed, our shares are in FRC (Cayman). That’s where we live until Deloitte (the JOLs) and the Court decide what happens. Changing a name or starting a new company doesn’t move FRC shareholders anywhere; only a court-sanctioned deal could have done that, and we don’t have one.

Madpunter - We own shares in FRC. The share registry of FRC is now under the control of Deloitte. TXN appears to be wholly separate and has no connection that we can see with Deloitte (or 'our' FRC). I am not sure who suggested our shares are now in TXN, they remain in FRC. If the share register had been, or was proposed to be moved, this would be a material development that Deloitte would have already reported on.

Lifeishard - by all means ask your A.I. The more you ask, the more it learns to tailor its responses. Just cross check what it tells you.

A belated thank you Cymro1864.

TXN Energy was renamed from another Frontera named company. I am not sure if anyone has found anything to link that entity with FRC, would be something if we could establish that. Absent that, it would seem "Frontera-now TXN" is a stand-alone structure unrelated to the company holding our shares (obviously now controlled by by Deloitte) and though it is clearly passing itself off as FRC, it is in image only, not in any legal sense.

SN had recently requested a new trial and MO have now filed their response which states in part:

“Defendant/Judgment Creditor’s Motion for New Trial is yet another attempt (hopefully the last) to delay the inevitable. Defendant/Judgment Creditor’s arguments asserted in the motion for new trial, completely ignore the fact that this entire proceeding was based on the recognition of a foreign-country judgment pursuant to Tex. Civ. Code which is intended to be an efficient streamlined process for recognition of foreign judgments……Similarly, Defendant/Judgment Creditor complains that he did not have an “opportunity to defend.” However, this argument completely ignores the fact that Defendant/Judgment Creditor had over five-years to present evidence, at multiple plenary hearings, but failed to do so.”

The court will now decide which motion to accept. It was the corporate level non payment of this charge that resulted in MO filing its Winding Up Petition.

The court has signed off on the agreed motion to dismiss, stating the claim is "dismissed without prejudice to the refiling of the same"

Life - No need to turn this into more of a drama than it already is. Just try to apply a bit of due diligence and cast a critical eye before hitting “post.” It is easy to confuse others with unchecked or poorly sourced information.

Stay focused, that is the best way to get through this process.

Sorry Lifeishard — but I think you need to hold yourself to a higher standard when it comes to verifying, or at least attempting to verify, before you post.

You wrote “Stakeholders were invited to appear”, but that line is grammatically awkward and doesn't reflect how Cayman court hearings are actually listed or described. In fact, none of the cause list entries we've seen over the years (Cayman or elsewhere) have ever looked or read like that. You should have picked up on that.

I think it’s great that you’re actively searching for updates and that’s exactly what we need. When quoting AI, which is a great resource, it's worth pausing to ask (in this instance) things like "Does this match the format we’ve seen before? Does it make procedural sense?" and so on, tweaking your cross checks to suit whatever it is you are investigating at that time.

Lifeishard - when the AI stated "He could retain his status as a former executive or director (i.e., being named on past disclosures) but not in a functional capacity. He might be involved in any investigations or enquiries by the liquidators into the company's affairs", all that means is, as a former officer of the company, he could be called on to answer questions by the liquidator.

SN did not stop the bill, it is stalled due to the actions of one or more committee members. As shared by Reuters, SN wrote in a personal capacity in support of TXN. We don't know when this letter was sent nor do we know what, if any, influence it may or may not have had other than endless clickbait articles on other sites.

You quoted a date for the dissolution hearing, can you didn't provide the source of that date.

It’s great that you’re using AI, but you really need to stop accepting its responses at face value. Reframing your questions is essential - challenge its assertions, request source material, and dig deeper. Instead of asking vague “What can Steve do?” type questions you should be asking: “What legal options, if any, remain under Cayman law now that FRC is approaching dissolution?". The more specific you are, the better.

Njames - I haven't seen any date on the Cause Lists so not sure where that date came from.

Lifeishard - perhaps challenge the AI by asking it "how can SN be an executive of FRC now that FRC is in liquidation" and see how it replies.

Deloitte have reaffirmed their position regarding the liquidation process:

"The JOLs have determined that the company is deeply insolvent and no recoveries are possible, and thus the liquidation is at an end. As the Liquidators consider that the affairs of the Company had been completely wound up, the liquidators are obliged to bring the liquidation to a conclusion.

As discussed, the liquidation is significantly unfunded. This has been the case for an extended period and no funding has been offered. The Liquidators are not in a position to devote further time or resources to matters which do not advance the estates position”.

If anyone is monitoring the Cayman Court Cause Lists, the case should appear under the FRC name, or if listed by reference number rather than name, as FSD 0343/23.

Lifeishard - Sen Mullins is talking anecdotally about his views 2 years ago when he last had contact with them. He is currently referring to the general investment climate.

I believe certain trust-related issues directly involving VN and SN are now in arbitration. For now, it appears TXN is being treated as a third party by VN, which explains why the subpoena appears in the public court record.

VN's legal team has issued a subpoena to TXN Energy and related parties. The subpoena seeks documents concerning any links between TXN Energy and the Nicandros family trust, as well as connections between TXN and former Frontera-named entities.

Jekyll - I think you’re referring to the internal FRUS arrangement to pay a 5% royalty to another FRC entity. That royalty only applied if FRUS held the Block 12 PSA and was generating revenue. The PSA was terminated, so there’s no royalty in practice and no “95%” sitting elsewhere. If you haven’t already, take a look at the GOGC’s 2024 consolidated accounts for a clear summary of what happened with the PSA.

Zenon100 - I forgot to add that, technically, it is possible for shareholders to be heard at a final hearing. The rules are defined and narrow, would need proof of funding and likely need to be presented via Cayman counsel. You can search online / ask AI for more info on this though keep in mind the creditors, not shareholders, always come first