Member Info for Looed

****nal221 – I do think the only option is to try and agree terms with the GOGC and restart operations themselves.

More generally, the company is not operational in Georgia, as confirmed by the company, the state agencies, and the local courts. FRC haven’t produced anything but court cases in a long time. We haven’t seen anything to show that situation has now changed.

Previous attempts to sell on (by the JOL’s) were rebuffed by the state agencies. We would have been unlikely to see a cent from any such fire sale.

The GOGC have given FRC some leeway to negotiate a new deal, but as they recently stated, they are prepared to continue extraction themselves.

A new deal is likely the quickest way to work around the limitations imposed by the local courts on operations providing FRC can agree the pre-deal demands of the GOGC and still have the financial and technical package in place that satisfies the GOGC post deal.

Next up – will the Hope case conclude as per the dates stipulated by the courts, evidence of which we should see in the next few days.

If you scroll back to 29th Jan under the "Frontera may return to the oil sector of Georgia" thread you can see the article and associated discussion.

Not sure how up-to-date the imaging is, but we know that the GOGC confirmed end January that they are operating within the "1%" while FRC try to finalize a deal.

Thanks WHamBoy - there is another filing which is FRC's opposition to Mourant Motion to dismiss, but its just a re-filing of court papers from 2020, so it looks like this case might run a while pending any deal.

Dulwhichman - this is a FRC filing in part to have the case returned to county court (at least I think that is what the purpose is) so FRC will be selective in what the show to suit their needs and they are showing that they are seeking settlement. We can see in the original Mourant v SN case there was an element of the parties working together. Perhaps this newer FRC case is a way to hurry the original case along given FRC are now willing to drop the claim in return for a deal for SN.

We don't know how high or low that particular offer was, but I presume Mourant knows SN has access to money / assets and they want more of a return as they won't get a cent from ZM. The court will much prefer a deal so hopefully the parties can figure out how much SN needs to pay and how much Mourant is willing to forgo.

Not sure if that answers your question but better an attempt at a deal than yet another court case.

SN is the defendant (with ZM) making it his personal debt to pay. The offer is X amount up front and the rest kicked down the road. I expect Mourant took the history of debt avoidance into account when deciding to decline settlement, at least for now. We don't yet know if a more favorable offer has been submitted.

****nal221 - yes, compared to the Hope case these ones are of lesser importance, though they don't help the reputation of SN / the company by remaining open.

While we wait for news on the Hope case, 2 new filings in the FRC v Mourant case. This first filing has 8 pages. You can pretty much ignore pages 1 - 7, but page 8 is an interesting read in relation to both this and the Mourant v SN, ZM case -

https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-v-Ozannes/Exhibit-Frontera-Resources-Corporation-Motion-To-Remand-Exhibits/txsd-4:2023-cv-00644-00007-001?user_id=guest

And here, confirmation the company remains active -

https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-v-Ozannes/CORPORATE-DISCLOSURE-STATEMENT-by-Frontera-Resources-Corporation-filed-Stratton-John-Robert/txsd-4:2023-cv-00644-00008?user_id=guest

ODR / ****nal221 - thanks and lets hope when news finally does drop it is of the positive variety.

All quiet right now - just some procedural filings by both FRC and Mourant now this particular case has moved to Federal Court. In the Hope case, they have until mid April to advise the court that the settlement has been finalized.

We have "instant access" to this case so should be alerted when any documents are filed with the court.

There are two individual yet connected cases

1 – Mourant Ozannes v SN, ZM – collection of a foreign debt, been going on forever.
2 – FRC v Mourant Ozannes – the relatively new case Mourant want dismissed

Mourant went to great lengths to launch and maintain case #1 and argued that Texas was the proper venue to try and settle the case. Many of the claims made by FRC against Mourant in case #2 are already stated in FRC filings in case #1.

FRC, in its original petition in case #2, argued that Texas was the proper venue as "Mourant has invoked the jurisdiction of Texas Courts by bringing suit in Mourant Ozannes v SN, ZM”

Pending whatever might be happening in the other cases, presumably FRC will need to file an opposing motion before the deadline for the court to consider the merits of the Mourant motion

The “Dismiss” document can now be accessed and it is in fact a Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendant, Mourant, citing lack of jurisdiction, and improper venue.

According to Google, the court must reply within 45 days.

You can access the Motion to Dismiss here - https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-v-Ozannes/Dismiss/txsd-4:2023-cv-00644-00004?user_id=guest

I keep getting a "technical error" when trying to download the dismiss document, I will try again later and hopefully it provides more background.

There are no updates in the other Hope case.

This is the relatively new case where FRC attempted to sue Mourant for $280m for breach of contract.

The case is now flagged as "Dismissed". I will try to access the motion to see if it provides more detail, but the line entry simply reads case dismissed.

MontiBurns – Technically, the parties have until early April to show the court that a deal has completed.

As recently shared by Earsbern – “Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation and Defendants are required to file a stipulation of dismissal by April 10, 2023. If a stipulation of dismissal is not filed by that date, Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation and Defendants are ordered to appear on April 13, 2023 at 1:30PM in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor of the San Francisco Courthouse and show cause why the claims of Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation should not be dismissed.”

FIC is handled a bit differently as they are dormant in this case – “Frontera International Corporation is ordered to file papers no later than March 9, 2023 showing cause why its claims should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. In the event Plaintiff Frontera International Corporation does not respond to this order, it claims will be dismissed without further notice.”

We have passed a filing deadline in another Hope-related case (OMF v Nicandros et al) where a dispositive filing was due 24th Feb, but nothing so far to say if anything was filed or if the case has been affected by settlement in the Cali case.

TLDR = Too Long, Didn't Read

The Federal Court will hold a pretrial and scheduling conference on 23 June 2023.

Hello Bezzy – I don't think the non-Hope related cases will automatically have a negative impact on funding. The outstanding cases are either personal involving SN & ZM, small claims by suppliers like YJ, or FRC are the plaintiff and not on the defensive. Recall that even when the Hope and ZM cases were in progress the company claimed to have a $100m credit facility set up.

Not sure on the sale issue – enticing as that sounds, the GOGC have made it clear they will deal with FRC and the statements from the company talk of FRC returning to operations.

This is the case in which FRC are suing for $280m claiming breach of contact.

The defendant - Mourant - have motioned that court for the case to be moved from Texas Civil Court to Texas Federal Court, citing jurisdictional issues and the amount of money being claimed. It looks like the court has agreed to defendants request.