Member Info for Looed

Theprodigy – I can’t say for sure, so this is just a guess.

As you might remember, FRGC was the subsidiary company that entered into the PSA. FRGC had it’s own subsidiary FEGL. This was the operating company for the PSA in partnership with the State Agencies (collectively - GOGC).

ZM, working with Green Capital, successfully petitioned the Georgian courts, where ZM must have had a fit of amnesia thus forgetting his earlier assignment of the PSA to FRUS, to successfully award the assets (PSA) of FRGC to Green Capital on the pretext of breach of contact. Once our FRC / GOGC realized what had happened they immediately appealed to the court. The FRC appeal was not successful (we don’t know why) but the GOGC appeal was, which stopped ZM / Green capital from converting the company, appropriating the assets, and legally operating the fields.

So, I expect this case is either another attempt to reverse the courts seizure and allow ZM to carry on, or is related to possible financial penalties incurred by ZM / Green Capital related to oil spills and / or the illegal removal and sale of oil by ZM.

Or it could be something entirely different, but we do have history on the above so I think its a reasonable assumption.

Frontera is often misspelled/ mistranslated as Frontera or Prontera and so on . G Kishmaria is the lawyer for both ZM and Green Capital.

compete should read "complete"

WHamBoy - I only scanned the docs but my read was it was to be billed monthly. Most of the price boxes were empty so the company applying could compete. Not sure if the 700gel was to give a price idea or is a charge connected to the tender process.

theprodigy - your memory is working just fine, it was indeed when the GG suspended the termination. There were a few articles and news pieces discussing it, this bit is from one of the translations -

"Natia Turnava, Minister of Economics and Sustainable Development of Georgia (NT) -We have made a decision and are suspending the request to terminate our contract. We are leaving this 1% area which ...

Journalist 2 (J2) - The government will no longer cancel the contract with Frontera, which is about to expire on July 27. According to the decision of the government, the company will be left with 1% of the search area for the activity. 99%, “Frontera returned to the state by the decision of the arbitral tribunal. The authorities explain that they have taken a compromise step. The reason is foreign policy and international image.

NT - Fundamentally important to us is our relationship with the United States as a strategic partner, which in no way should be overshadowed by the defense campaign launched by one particular company. Practically, we make such a compromise decision.

Davit Zalkaniani, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Georgia, (DZ) - In order for the ordinary, routine, commercial dispute not to become detrimental to interstate relations, we have therefore made this decision."

After this, ZM tried all he could to sabotage the turnaround by insulting anyone and everyone in the GG. It wasn't long after he pulled that stunt, and Texas turned against him, that the then Economy Minister advised the press to make sure they were talking to the "right" FRC not the fake one.

theprodigy - I can't say that ZM is located in that particular location just yet, but he does seem to be on his way.

bugsy-b - The english site seems to lag behind the Georgian one so I don't see it. Is this the tender (in Georgian) -https://tenders.procurement.gov.ge/public/?go=485492&lang=ge

****nal221 - Thanks for that and I can see the filing now. There was an inperson docket for Trial on Merits booked for Monday. The motion states both sides never got the memo and so were unaware of the docket. The Motion states the Plaintiff has confirmed the SN version of events. Both sides want to work together on a mutually agreed revised trial date. There is a proposed order to that effect so let's see how the court rules. Meanwhile, the corporate level case against Mourant would seem to still rumble on.

Lifeishard - just ignore the troll-ish goading. Its all it ever does. Seems to spend its life "skeptical" so leave em to it. Quite how insulting and trashing people is supposed to get them to be goaded is rather baffling. I have done more to safeguard its investment than it will ever do for me, so I am happy to consider comms with the poster concluded.

No problem - and I have just as many sleepless nights as you!

WHamBoy - Even if the company was in a corresponding mood it’s unlikely you would have received a reply – it’s a public holiday in the US.

Can anyone access this case?

There is a new filing - "Motion To Strike Unnoticed Trial Setting" and a proposed order regarding the same. Can anyone open the filings or explain what this type of motion means. I think most of us know what motion to strike is, but never seen it in connection to "Unnoticed Trial Setting" I cannot tell which side lodged the filing. Thanks.

Zeron100 - I am validated by the company and FSHG. FSHG get the full in / out messaging every time to ensure full transparency, and they sometimes pop on to here to confirm. As they do when they send such validated messaging to its membership.

Thanks all for the comments. I see a common thread about "why not give us basic information, even if its stuff we already know", or words to that effect.

To ODR's point, the company has issued several official direct and unfiltered statements via the news wires, usually via AP. This one would seem to tick all the boxes required and was discussed extensively in the Georgian media and here -https://www.interpressnews.ge/en/article/116463-us-based-frontera-resources-advances-return-to-work-with-government-of-georgia/ and also aligns with the more recent messages shared.

If you follow the timeline of the activities of ZM while CEO (described in testimony), the operational status of the company pre and post ZM (also in testimony) then the catalog of legal events you can see path as to why shareholders were not prioritized. Doesn't make it right, but it's there. Don't forget that comms and updates only started following the ousting of ZM.

The company started a sadly short-lived shareholder validation process which had to be scuppered one the enormity of the ZM fraud began to unfold. Nothing to say that won't restart when the situation presents itself.

jv123 - I am equally suspicious of people forever goading others to do the "dirty work". I would happily stack my contribution to this board, be it info sharing, find and managing the translations and everything in-between against your own.

Not sure what you mean about "silence" - selective silence concerning specific information yes. I did not demand you agree they way you demand I act on your behalf. As you rightly point out I am not an authorized spokesperson so please don't issue me with instructions as though I am. I share no end of information. I encourage people to email the company which creates a electronic trail (possibly a parchment and quill for Miss Mapp) of contact that might have a use depending on how matters progress, and so on.

Whilst I think confronting someone on their personal property can never end well, why don't you contact the media if you think it's a viable route to achieve something. Why forever wait on others and then get angry when nothing happens to your exact requirements. Nothing stopping you if you feel so strongly about it.

Hi wadassistant. I am glad you have decided to take peoples comments onboard and, if I understand your message correctly, you will not follow through on your trip to USA.

I know the people who contacted the judge did it with good intent, but that action was damaging to the company and to the relations that some of us had been steadily building with them. I got a verbal slap in the face (I can still feel the mark!) and I had to share a very terse message from the company with you all. If I recall correctly, that was the last significant message we got from the company.

It’s ironic that the only person that benefitted from that intervention was ZM. He must have had a grin like a Cheshire cat when he realized that victims of his fraud were, albeit unwittingly, helping his case. FRC were admonished in court so giving ZM his only ‘win’. The court held the company 100% responsible for what the judge saw as “intimidation”. People didn’t mean it that way, but that’s how the court interprets such things.

If ZM had gotten Green Capital to contact the judge we would be livid, right? That’s why both parties must get equal treatment and win or lose based on the quality of the duly processed filings and testimonies. Other than that hiccup, we got a slam dunk because our evidence destroyed the written and verbal testimony of ZM.

Since then, a lot of time and effort has gone in to rebuilding some level of comms. Lets hope it comes to something.

Regarding my “secret info”. The information mostly relates to matters connected to the ZM case.

We talk about the “ZM case” or the “Hope case” as separate entities but that isn’t strictly true. Hope - FIC – FTI – Green Capital – ZM’s fake FRC and more. It all needs to be scrutinized and unraveled. They are working day and night on this.

ZM thought he had us over a barrel, but they had him. It’s very possible that some of that same information could be used to be connect the dots on some of these other cases. So, you could say we have weaponized silence. You having access to this information won’t really impact your day-to-day, but it might benefit the other side to our detriment while these cases play out. So, silence.

Do you remember the long message from the company telling us about the legal teams in US and Georgia, going after ZM etc. etc. That original statement stands today just as it did when first issued. Nothing has changed. The ZM Texas case is over, but they told us they are going after him in multiple jurisdictions. What that message told us is that they would be starting legal actions (done), and they will update us once those cases are concluded (pending). And that’s exactly where we are.

Once the Hope case is out the way, and assuming it goes in our favor, we would be absolutely right to expect a message of some substance from the company as well as a more formal plan regarding communications. But let’s let them win first.

ORDER by Chief Judge Richard Seeborg granting [111] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [108] MOTION for Summary Judgment Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Responses due by 1/24/2023. Replies due by 2/14/2023. Motion Hearing previously scheduled for 12/15/2022 rescheduled for 3/2/2023 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Chief Judge Richard Seeborg.
https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-et-al-v-Hope-et-al/ORDER-by-Chief-Judge-Richard-Seeborg-granting-111-Motion-for-Extension-of-Time-to-File-Response-Reply-as-to-108-MOTION-for-Summary-Judgment-Defendants-Notice-of-Motion-and-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment-Memorandum-of-Points-and-Authorities-Responses-due/cand-3:2019-cv-01996-00112?user_id=guest

FRC motion has been granted.

https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-et-al-v-Hope-et-al/Declaration-of-Daniel-Nageotte/cand-3:2019-cv-01996-00111-001?user_id=guest

FRC ask for extension for their reply to Hope motion for summary judgement from 25/11/22 to 24/1/23 citing. FRC originally wanted 60 days, Hope agreed to 45 days so we will see how the judge rules.

Thanks toatie - I am sure Erik9Haggy / Puddy will keep an eye on the balance and let us know if we ever need a top up. At the prices we are paying I think 300 quid should be OK for a good while yet.

ZiggyZag - I have mentioned it but there has been no response on us having to go down this route. Hopefully they might comment once these cases are done and dusted.

The instant access account is now set up so hopefully we will get some alerts soon.

It looks like there might be a lot of activity in the Hope case between now and into 2023. This Hope case is “Frontera Resources Corporation et al v. Hope et al, Northern District of California 3:2019-cv-01996”. There are also two similar actions pending in Texas but I think its fair to say that the Cali case is the main event.

We currently have “guest” access to filings meaning we get to see them 48 hours after they have been filed with the court at $3.99 per filing. There is an option for “instant” access when the motions are filed which is available for a monthly fee of $9.99 + the fee per filing.

The translation fund will be used to sign up for "instant access" to this case as well as pay for the filings.

Hopefully this means I can quickly share links to the filings and so avoid the time needed to edit, cut & paste potentially lengthy documents.

Some of these documents can be quite daunting in terms of length and complexity, but I am sure there will be folks around to dissect and pick up on the relevant parts for the benefit of others.