Member Info for Looed

I will do my best - its early morning their time so I don't expect a reply by return. Will let you know.

"Please be advised that on this date the Court GRANTED Appellant’s (Thats SN etc) motion to extend time to file a reply brief in the above cause, time extended to and including Friday, July 16, 2021."

WHamBoy - As I understand it - Mourant Ozannes are a Cayman law firm to which SN & ZM personally owe just shy of US$1m. In the Cayman court they agreed to have the court find against them. Since that judgement, Mourant have being trying to have the Cayman Order served in Texas and SN has been doing all he can to avoid the debt by relying on technicalities (a bit like ZM is trying to do in the other cases) to delay enforcement. One of the reasons for this must have been that ZM could not be served so I guess that meant SN took full responsibility for the debt.

The latest twist was that SN joined Mourant in asking the court to reinstate the Case stating that "Mamulaishvili has eagerly embraced the jurisdiction of Texas Courts and retained a well-qualified Houston, Texas law firm to represent him."

And

Defendant Steve Nicandros respectfully requests this Court to:
(1) Grant Mourant Ozannes’ motion to effect substitute service on Zaza Mamulaishvili by serving Mamulaishvili’s Houston, Texas attorney Ms. Claudia Wilson Frost, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, 609 Main Street, Houston, Texas.
(2) Grant him any other relief, at law or in equity, to which he may be entitled.

Which the court agreed and ZM was served via his Texas lawyer. So now ZM is trying to get out of his liabilities with this court.

(if you followed the other Texas case you will recall how much ZM relied on Cayman related evidence)

ZAZA MAMULAISHVILI’S ORIGINAL ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED NOTICE OF FOREIGN-COUNTRY-JUDGMENT/ACTION SEEKING RECOGNITION OF SAME

Defendant Zaza Mamulaishvili files the following Original Answer to Plaintiff Mourant Ozannes’s First Amended Notice of Foreign-Country Judgment/Action Seeking Recognition of Same. In support thereof, Mr. Mamulaishvili respectfully shows as follows:

I. GENERAL DENIAL
1. Pursuant to Rule 92 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Mamulaishvili denies each and every allegation in Mourant Ozannes’s First Amended Notice and demands strict proof thereof.

II. DEFENSES
Mr. Mamulaishvili asserts the following defenses, affirmative defenses, and grounds for nonrecognition:

2. Mr. Mamulaishvili did not receive notice of the Cayman Islands proceeding in sufficient time to enable him to defend.

III. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Mr. Mamulaishvili prays that the Court render judgment that Mourant Ozannes take nothing, refusing to recognize the judgment of the Cayman Islands court, and that Mr. Mamulaishvili recover his reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and costs of court, and for all other relief to which Mr. Mamulaishvili may be justly entitled at law or in equity.

Dated: June 28, 2021
Respectfully submitted
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

The Court Reporter has been granted an extension until 8th July to file the record for the court.

Once filed, ZM has 20 days to file his Accelerated Appeal.

ZM's side spent a lot of time trying to get Ballard dismissed during open testimony. We know it failed, but the signed Order denying the Motion, dated 28/06/21, and has now been filed.

Thanks cymro1864.

I have sent to the translator to have it checked out.

I believe it's a routine request as the dates are all historical and reflect what we already know. I believe its just a record of someone requesting a record of the current - pre-appeal - status of FEGL

The_Gambler - I will try to find out what - if anything - this means. It could be exactly as you say - just a routine request. I cannot guarantee a reply but will try my best.

I think the letter you refer to re costs to is the not the cost of the case itself but the admin cost for the the court to forward the various filings / pleadings ZM's legal team have requested.

Shareholders expressing their frustration and being critical of SN / others is not "illicit activity". Not sure how you can read this message as some form of gag order.

They are referencing those parties who, with ZM, attempted to “steal and convert Frontera's primary holdings and gut value from all shareholders.”

I think you are reading it the wrong way.

They are saying that the Texas case is a very public way that shareholders can see that the company will robustly defend its position. The previous message mentioned that events where also going on that are not in the public domain. Remember they are not just going after ZM, they are also going after Green Capital in Georgia, dealing with GOGC etc.

It ends by stating comms will become more proactive in comms with shareholders. Thats seems to be a promise, hardly a threat to a shareholder.

"Our company is continuing to evolve in a positive manner.

The recent hearing in U.S./Texas district court exposed efforts to steal and convert Frontera's primary holdings and gut value from all shareholders.

Mr. Nicandros, our board and executive management team have mounted and funded a serious and proper effort to protect and preserve against illicit activity as the company continues its evolution back to value creation.

In the meantime, as you (will all) no doubt will agree, it is not in the best interest of our company's work for anyone to undertake efforts to damage this progress or participate in the theft of Frontera's holdings.

As we continue to advance progress, we will indeed be communicating more proactively."

(As always, FSHG have the full comms chain)

Forgot to add that the link is in English

This link, dated 26/4/21, is from the Georgian Registry and details “Liquidation/ Reorganisation/ Insolvency Proceedings” against Rusmetali Ltd, of which ZM owns 39%. So I assume this is what is being Appealed:-

https://bs.napr.gov.ge/GetBlob?pid=400&bid=boVlyOwlsX3qmYsntmLmFHzYksALatXkbPWWztf]ESDleMnYE5lrWGgiEiU7EMKT

Thanks cymro1864 - thats a great find.

The three people mentioned in the Appeal are ZM's business partners in Rustmetali Ltd, which is one of his other business interests. So it is possible this case isn't FRR-related, though with this guy you can't be too sure.

If thats the case, then it would seem FRR aren't his only legal woes right now!

Both sides have waived right to a court hearing so the judge(s) will deliberate in chambers to consider their verdict.

You have to laugh -

"Appellants’ lengthy recitation of Mr. Mamulaishvili’s supposed misdeeds is completely untrue."

Another way of seeing it -

"On January 15, 2021, Appellant Frontera Resources Corporation (“Frontera”) initiated a AAA arbitration against Appellee Zaza Mamulaishvili (“Appellee,” “ZM” or “Mr. Mamulaishvili”) under Claim No. 01-21-0000-2118. C.R. 114. Six days later, on January 21, 2021, ZM filed his shareholder derivative suit against Frontera’s Board of Directors."

WHamBoy - its hard to keep up!

In ZM's employment contract there is a clause that any dispute during or after his employment will be settled by arbitration. From one of the FRC filings:-

"Plaintiff, Mr. Zaza Mamulaishvili, as an employee of FRC, signed an employment agreement (the "“Agreement”") with an arbitration provision that compels arbitration of any and all disputes between him and the Company in tort, contract or otherwise. This broad arbitration clause is fully enforceable against Mr. Mamulaishvili and applies to his claims in this lawsuit. Indeed, Mr. Mamulaishvili only filed these claims after an arbitration was brought against him by FRC seeking significant damages for his years of misdeeds and mismanagement while employed by the Company."

The court ruled against compelling Arbitration but also allowed the ZM v SN case to carry on.

FRC appealed that Order regarding Arbitration and in doing so seems to have made it into a separate case as it now falls under the First Court of Appeals.

Hopefully I got the sequence of events right.

The Appellee - ZM - have now filed their briefs. The file isn't uploaded yet, just the notification.