Member Info for Looed

This is the part I mean about 'two parts' - but I think the case has been dismissed entirely. Hopefully better minds can confirm if I am interpreting it correctly.

This is from the FRC Motion to dismiss

YA II PN, LTD (“YA II”) sued Frontera in the United Kingdom for breach of contract and obtained a no-answer default judgment against Frontera (“UK Default Judgment”). YA II then sought to enforce the UK Default Judgment by filing this case. On June 22, 2020, this Court signed the Enforcement Order.

Frontera challenged both the UK Default Judgment and the default Enforcement Order. In December 2020, this Court granted Frontera’s motion to stay all proceedings pending resolution of Frontera’s appeal of the UK Default Judgment, but reserved consideration of Frontera’s motion to vacate the Enforcement Order. Because YA II argued that the Enforcement Order was a final judgment, Frontera also filed a restricted appeal of the Enforcement Order as a precautionary measure to preserve its appellate rights. That appeal is pending, with Frontera’s opening brief filed on May 14, 2021. In that brief, Frontera asked the Court of Appeals to dismiss the appeal for lackof jurisdiction if the Enforcement Order is not a final, appealable judgment or otherwise vacate the order.

Meanwhile, Frontera also challenged the UK Default Judgment, which formed the sole basis for these proceedings before the Court. On May 26, 2021, following a hearing, the UK High Court issued an order setting aside YA II’s default judgment against Frontera. Here is the language from the order, which is attached as Exhibit A:

WHamboy - yes the court dismissed the Texas case as a result of the judgement in London. Not sure if they can have another go in London but for now its dismissed as far as Texas is concerned.

I have a vague memory that this case had two parts in Texas so not sure if this Order means both sides of the case have been vacated. Maybe Oopsi or NJames can provide a better explanation.

I can't cut and paste but the judge has signed the Order granting the Motion to Dismiss and Vacate

I haven't had any update so they are either in closed session or its as Syric has posted - they have agreed to extend and possibly set new dates. Will post should I hear anything.

This is from the new TRO (thanks Sycic)

SECOND AGREED EXTENDED TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

This Temporary Restraining Order was originally granted by Judge Jaclanel McFarland on May 4, 2021, at 4:53 p.m. It was extended by Agreement of the Parties and by Order of this Court to May 28, 2021. It has now been extended by Agreement of the Parties and by Order of this Court from May 28, 2021 to June 11, 2021. Below is the language of the original Temporary Restraining Order which is being extended by agreement.

Thanks StarRage - looks like that one works.

ODR we are trying - if anyone has the audio please share. StarRage shared it with me last year but that link seems to have expired.

tsbs1 - no need to apologize, I am as angry as you at the way we have been treated.

Its just that going through the judge is a serious breach of protocol that reflects badly on FRC side. As you might have heard, it takes up the courts time as they have to enter it as extra evidence even though it won't be read or used - all at a time when the judge is trying to move things along. With time so tight and ZM about to be grilled the court wasted precious time dealing with this.

tsbs1 - my comments are purely in relation to sending messages to the judge.

ODR - yes I will make that point, though from StarRage's recent post it would seem at least one of them is a shareholder.

Between delist and the termination of ZM there was zero communication from the company to shareholders. Blame the old BOD all you want, but ZM was the very public face and spokesperson for the company. I imagine over 90% of any efforts to contact the company where primarily aimed at finding ways to communicate with him.

Since his removal last August, and under a new BOD, we have seen the green shoots of shareholder outreach. One of the recent messages from the company committed to further develop and formalize communications in tandem with the company plan of action.

We are now in the dangerous position of the company deciding that shareholder comms might not be so worthwhile after all.

As you can see on the live-stream, we have a very experienced legal team fighting for our collective best interests. Let them do their job. Nothing you say or do at this point in time can better the evidence they already have.

Expressing that you are an angry shareholder (if that is what the messages said) might make the person feel better in the moment, but all it is actually doing is helping the Plaintiff who is trying to steal your investment.

I am sure there will be a time when the company will listen to ‘our side’ of the story. Please understand that ‘now’ is not that time.

"In case it is not already abundantly obvious, communications with Judge Weems are unbelievably inappropriate and do damage to our position.

We cannot stress enough how counterproductive and negatively they are received by the court.

Anyone watching today could draw that conclusion, but they may not appreciate that the judge is holding our side accountable, not Mr. Mamulaishvili."

(Original message has been copied to FSHG)

Pt. 3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Addendum to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the day, month and year first written above.
BUYER: Green Capital LLC

SELLER: Frontera Resources Georgia Corporation Branch in Georgia

(its signed by ZM)

Pt 2 (contd of Pt.7 on previous post) Pt. 2

for the 5 (five) consecutive quotations published after the Bill of Lading date
(B/L=0), minus a discount of 60 U.S. dollars.
(8) If delivered by 31 March 2019: the average of the mean (high/low) quotations,
as published by Platt's Crude Oil Marketwire for Brent Dated valid for the 5 (five) consecutive quotations published after the Bill of Lading date (B/L=0), minus a discount of 65 U.S. dollars_
Section 4. Amendments to Clause 21 of the Contract. Clause 21 of the Contract shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted in lieu thereof:
21.1 This Contract shall be construed, interpreted and governed by the Laws of Georgia.
21.2 Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Contact shall be referred to common courts of Georgia having jurisdiction over such dispute.
Section 5. Security and Pledge. The Parties agree that, in order to guarantee performance by the Seller of its obligations under this Contract, the Seller, its affiliates and assignees, guarantee and pledge the following in favor of the Buyer ("Security"), who shall be entitled to enforce its rights to such Security, by written notice to the Seller, immediately in case of non-performance by the Seller of its obligations:
(i) all produced oil and gas in possession of the Seller at the time of such written notice, or to be produced by the Seller in future;
(ii) any and all rights in, under or deriving from, Production Sharing Contract and Refinery Study dated 25 June 1997 ("PSC");
(iii) any and all rights in, under and deriving from Mineral Use License dated 14 November 1997;
(iv) any and all rights to the 50% share in the charter capital of the Operating Company (as such term is defined in the PSC);
(v) any and all rights to any property, weather moveable or immovable, tangible or intangible, possessed by the Seller and/or the Operating Company at the time of such written notice.
In case of enforcement of the Security under this clause, the Seller and the Operating Company shall use their best efforts and do everything that may be required in order to guarantee, implement, perform and perfect the delivery of title to the Security to the Buyer with immediate effect and without undue delays.
Section 6. Contract. Except as amended by this Addendum , the Contract shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.
Section 7. Facsimile Signatures; Counterparts. This Addendum may be executed by facsimile signatures and in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one agreement.
Section 8. Severability. If any provision of this Addendum is held to be invalid or unenforceable in whole or in part, such invalidity or unenforceability shall attach only to such provision or part thereof and the remaining part of such provision hereof shall continue in full force and effect.

Sorry for the formatting - Pt.1

ADDENDUM #2 TOFORWARDSALEANDPURCHASECONTRACT
This ADDENDUM #1 ("Addendum") to Forward Sale and Purchase Contract dated 25 April 2018 is made and entered into as of 19 October 2018 by and between Frontera Resources Georgia Corporation Branch in Georgia and Green Capital LLC, a company with office at 30 Gribocdov Street, Tbilisi, Georgia, ID 402052372 (the "Buyer"). Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms used herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Contract (as defined below).
Whereas, the Parties have entered into Forward Sale and Purchase Contract on 25 April 2018, which was amended by Addendum #1 dated 24 July 2018 (as so amended, the "Contract");
Whereas, the Parties not desire to make changes to the Contract pursuant to this Addendum;
Now, Therefore, the Parties have agreed as follows:
Section 1. Amendments to Clause 8.1 of the Contract. Clause 8.1 of the Contract shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted in lieu thereof:
8.1 The Buyer shall make prepayment of up to 10,000,000 (Ten Million) US Dollars, to be paid to the Seller in full or partially, as agreed by the Parties, by way of wire transfer to the nominated bank account, over the period of 9 (nine) months after signing of this Contract ("Prepayment").
Section 2. Amendments to Clause 8.3 of the Contract. Clause 8.3 of the Contract shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted in lieu thereof:
8.3 Delivery of the Product shall occur during the period from 30 September 2018 through 31 March 2019, as agreed by the Parties, in one lot or partially ("Delivery Period"), in accordance with this Clause 8.
Section 3. Amendments to Clause 8.5 of the Contract. The following subparagraphs (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) shall be added to Clause 8.5:
(4) If delivered by 30 November 2018: the average of the mean (high/low) quotations, as published by Platt's Crude Oil Marketwire for Brent Dated valid for the 5 (five) consecutive quotations published after the Bill of Lading date (B/L=0), minus a discount of 45 U.S. dollars.
(5)Ifdeliveredby31December2018:theaverageofthemean(high/low) quotations, as published by Platt's Crude Oil Marketwire for Brent Dated valid for the 5 (five) consecutive quotations published after the Bill of Lading date (B/L=0), minus a discount of 50 U.S. dollars.
(6) If delivered by 31 January 2019: the average of the mean (high/low) quotations, as published by Platt's Crude Oil Marketwire for Brent Dated valid for the 5 (five) consecutive quotations published after the Bill of Lading date (B/L=0), minus a discount of 55 U.S. dollars.
(7) If delivered by 28 February 2019: the average of the mean (high/low) quotations, as published by Platt's Crude Oil Marketwire for Brent Dated valid

OK let me check both docs

is it the Writ of Execution or the Forward Sale or something else?

Njames - its just gone back online. They typically do maintenance approx 2-4am Houston. As I am online now and you know which doc I can try to locate

Njames - thanks for the update. I will keep an eye out for the signed Order once its loaded.

Njames - ignore my request re exhibit number on the financing aspect. I believe the info is from an earlier FRC Counterclaim.

Thanks Njames - was the ruling re ballard announced during the hearing as I can't see any Order filed yet. I am using this site - https://www.hcdistrictclerk.com/eDocs/Public/Search.aspx?Tab=tabCivil

Can you recall which exhibit are you quoting from re ZM sabotaging the financing - thats an interesting read to say the least.