Member Info for Looed

Earsbern - FTI relied solely on the evidence provided by ZM. It was one story Georgia, and quite another story in Cayman.

Exhibit 45 also states -

"In the meantime, Mr. Mamulaishvili, former CEO of FRC, has begun providing the JOLs with information and documentation on the current status of the Company and FEGL."

ZM's side where due to file briefs yesterday in the Motion to Compel Arbitration case. We will have to wait and see where this case goes now but I would think ZM may have to wait a long time for the US$11m he is claiming.

First of all thanks to Proper123 for sharing.

Strictly speaking its a Temporary Injunction so the TRO seems have been combined into this order. The body of the Order is a cut and paste job from the various FRC filings with some commentary from the court. The court is also clear on the merits of this case going to full trial -

"...this Court finds from specific, verified facts in the evidence presented, and from the testimony of witnesses as shown by Frontera Resources Corporation ("Frontera") that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage will result to Frontera between now and the time of trial, that Frontera has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits at trial, and has no adequate remedy at law in the interim."

"specific, verified facts" - it doesn't get more brutal than that.

They can stop ZM in Georgia -

"Thus, Mr. Mamulaishvili cannot compete with Frontera or its subsidiaries until January 15, 2024." and the links between ZM and GC where shown in court. He and GC are forbidden to compete.

It states ZM took advantage of a purely administrative error in the Georgian registry regarding the Assignment.

There is no mention of costs though the court finds FRC have a probable right to relief.

There are approx 200 pages of new filings by ZM. Its hard to tell if the court had sight of these before or after the Order. They are mostly docs from the Georgian registry. There are a couple of emails from Levan to the BOD from late 2018 with heavily redacted powerpoint presentations attached. Presumably an attempt to show GC was known to the BOD. Levan is tainted by his association with ZM.

No need for people to send evidence to the company. Thats already been going on for months and they got what they needed. Let them focus on enforcing this T.I.

ODR - copy that!

ODR - its nearly 1am for me so forgive the bluntness!

The Order details the transfer to FRUS as per FRC view of things and I can only assume it agrees with FRC in granting the injunction (just my opinion).

This is just released, we may get more clarity over the next few hours.

Just reading the Order and it would seem the court finds in favor of all FRC claims

Sorry I don't know the implications but I do believe it stops ZM in his tracks.

I see this as a win for our side.

Specifically, 21/2/22

Zeps - I hope this is a birthday gift of sorts!

Cant cut and paste sorry, but the seems court sides with FRC

R8pilot - yes thats a great observation.

I did a bit of digging and the situation is as R8pilot says - the judge can extend the TRO one time.

However both parties can extend the TRO as many times as they want providing both parties agree. All extensions to date have been at the request of the parties.

I can now see that the TRO - though posted within the past 24 hours - actually ran out yesterday! I assumed it was new and the dates didn't click with me when I posted. Apologies. So not sure what the state of play is.

Jonathansxx - this is what the TRO says - "This Temporary Restraining Order is extended until the Court’s ruling on Counter-
Defendants’ application for temporary injunction or June 11, 2021 at 5:00 p.m., whichever is earlier."

Its not signed but it says agreed by all parties and the court.

Its also likely this will again delay the Appeal to Compel Arbitration.

I posted the details of the mutually agreed extension to the TRO on Wednesday.

Had those sequence of events not taken place the livestream would not have been taken down, or at least shareholders wouldn’t be blamed for it. Instead, we would be able to see which side asks to go off-camera and why. It might have helped us better understand the dynamic of the case and we might get a feel for the way the judge is leading. Opportunity lost.

Just because we have been treated disgracefully doesn’t mean the judge can’t invoke a procedural rule in her own court. Regrettably, these two issues are unrelated as far as the court in concerned.

Yes WHamboy, the threat (I assume to ZM, surely not the judge) aside, I am sure some of the messages where sent with good intent and to try and convey to an audience shareholder plight. Unfortunately they had the opposite effect. As you say, it also exposed a new way for others to attempt to inflict damage to FRR.

I just saw the post by Bigdouble who shared his reply from the clerk to the court.

It seems the judge has indeed continued to receive messages in addition to the ones she mentioned in open court.

WHamboy - nothing loaded so far, but they can get loaded at any time.

It is so frustrating that we have lost the livefeed. I think from the judges perspective there was the incidents on Zoom and now direct messaging. So I think from her perspective it came across as an ongoing pattern of disruption that would likely continue to disrupt her court. She made clear on numerous occasions how packed her schedule is so she had no patience for this behavior.

As Oopsi pointed out, its a shame that this may well have helped ZM to continue to screw us all.

Every judge has a FB page where they make posts related to their individual courts. For example "my court closed due to bad weather", reminding people to register to vote, that sort of thing.

I might have misheard, but when she first raised this matter at the start of the hearing she said it wasn't her personal account that had been messaged but her official court page.

Some disappointing news - As a result of people messaging the judge, she has ruled that the livestream will be turned off for the duration of the hearing on the TI.

Her ruling is that “anyone wishing to see the proceedings will have to appear in my courtroom in person at my discretion.”