Member Info for Looed

Speaking of court dates, there are multiple events across a number of cases happening between now and mid Dec, so we might get some more information and decisions on some of the cases - YA / Mourant (the original case v SN) / Hope

ODR - it's been standard practice for a while now for Hope to file (with FRC consent) for an extension almost at the last minute.

The difference this time is the reason and timing for the attempt to get the SJ. We need to see if and how the courts deal with that.

Just a guess but its possible these things can exist in tandem - its business as usual on the FRC v Hope case (delay, delay) while Hope plays his hand and goes for SJ

There is a new filing in the FRC v Hope case asking for yet another delay (I have lost count of how many of these have been filed) -"Proposed Order Order Granting Stipulated Motion for Continuance of Case Deadline".

Its a mutual request filed by both sides and moves the deadline for expert discovery from 18/11/22 to 27/1/22 (I assume thats typo and its 27/1/23).

The judge has granted the request. I am not sure how this fits in with Hope's move to get the court to grant Summary Judgement.

The motion for Summary Judgement is an SH initiative so he might well end up in the box to justify his motion. If / when FRC file their response to the SJ we might get a better understanding of why this is happening now.

We do not know the status of any of the cases that might be ongoing in Georgia. Also, there are cases that don't yet have court dates such as the recently launched FRC v Mourant case.

Hope seeking Summary Judgement in one of the cases related to him might impact some dates should the court allow his motion to progress.

These cases don't preclude the possibility of discussions and deals taking place at the same time.

Thanks Earsbern - it does feel like Hope has thrown the kitchen sink at this, perhaps this is last roll of the dice for him. Let see if the company try a similar tactic or cut through the weeds and try to focus the court on what they see as the key points. It's still early days but I don't see any movement in the other Hope related cases, so perhaps each party will assume that whatever happens here will cascade down to the other cases.

Hope didn't get much of a mention in the ZM case, and when he was referenced it was in dismissive terms by the company, as you would expect. The Texas case also highlighted his financial problems. Whilst we can't underestimate Hope, and he might now be in better shape financially, but the company had been able to keep him sidelined until now.

You might not be an expert but you do a great job of summerising the documents!

2 more filings - quite a slog to get through and not sure you will be any the wiser if you digest it all, but one little nugget in the 1st filing, Exhibit 3, pages 9 & 10 -

"Identify and describe all transactions Frontera has considered and/or executed upon with the following entities and individuals:
f.BP International Ltd., or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates"

I don't see BP getting a mention anywhere else in the filings to date.

There is also a deposition by SN dated Sept 2022 but it's a bit hard to follow.

https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-et-al-v-Hope-et-al/Declaration-of-Ross-Parker-in-Support-of-Defendants-039-Motion-for-Summary-Jud/cand-3:2019-cv-01996-00108-002?user_id=guest

https://www.docketbird.com/court-cases/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-et-al-v-Hope-et-al/cand-3:2019-cv-01996?utm_source=frozen_email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=np_public_user_following&utm_content=following&db_uid=54555bc1-1481-4890-8fa4-c5251014b047

In the last line SN should read S Hope

whobuys - I hate to sound vague but the best place for that info at this time is in the hands of the company. They will let me know when that situation changes.

This case is FRC v Hope - you could see its one in a series of tit-for-tat cases of each side suing the other. Here, Hope as defendant could have asked for Summary Judgement(SJ) at any time if , as his filings claim, his case is so strong.

So we need to try and figure out why Hops is seeking SJ now after getting so many mutually agreed extensions. I think we will need to see more filings to try to figure that out but, as in the ZM case, it is possible that commercially sensitive information is redacted.

The next move should the response from FRC. This could also be a gambit by SN to get a deal and cut out the need for a lengthy trial and bring matters to a conclusion.

This file runs to about 245 pages so i hope you can access this link to Hope's Declaration and his exhibits, though it's nothing we haven't really seen before, there might be one or two new bits of data in there.

In going for Summary Judgement I believe Hope is telling the court that his case is so strong - and therefore FRC's case is so weak - that there is no point going to trial and this should be settled out of court.

As you would expect, Hope portrays himself to be an all round decent chap who acted with the best of intentions and only wants his money and shares m'lud. I expect FRC, if they oppose, will file a very different version of events.

This is the first of 6 filings - I will try to access the rest though I am sure Earsbern will be able to get the more detailed version (and a more expert view) of the various motions.

https://www.docketbird.com/court-documents/Frontera-Resources-Corporation-et-al-v-Hope-et-al/Declaration-of-Stephen-Hope-in-Support-of-Defendants-039-Motion-for-Summary-Ju/cand-3:2019-cv-01996-00108-001?user_id=guest

I have covid again - always makes me ratty!

I will try to access the latest doc's unless Earsbern beats me to it. This is a significant development so we need to see what the various filings have to say. This is Hope making his move.

WHamBoy – if it wasn’t for people putting in time and effort behind the scenes collecting and collating rumours, trying to understand the court cases and so on we wouldn’t know anything. So the intel is hardly “nothing” as you claim.

If anyone can be bothered, there is an update out there on the Hope case.

WHamBoy - There are 3 cases all of which overlap, but in simple terms, OMF is chasing money and 500,000,000 shares. The shares were / are personal guarantees made against any non-payment of the monetary debt.

As Earsbern predicted, there is now a Doc. 59 granting the motion to reschedule with the bench trial set for 11/7/23.

Thanks Earsbern, much appreciated.

A few days ago we saw a proposed motion for delay in the Hope related Texas case.

Now the Judge has agreed to a Hope proposed Motion to extend the case deadline in the Cali case. I can't see the revised dates but hopefully Earsbern can access the details.

Thanks ZiggyZag - see if this link works to a similar report works - https://www.tristangate.com/20220210-new-york-district-court-compels-arbitration-of-claims-by-outrider-management-against-argentem-creek/

This site - https://www.tristangate.com - details the very long line of court actions, starting over 20 years ago, that remains unresolved to this day.

No worries Earsbern - its hard to keep up!

Thanks Earsbern. To avoid confusion over dates, this doc 58 is the same as I posted Friday 19:39.

However Earsbern has additional info that isn't on the basic file that I accessed, so it does indeed seem to be a mutually agreed delay.