Member Info for Looed

Toatie – good luck with those other shares.

B-2-0 – Apologies, as I don’t really understand your post. Are you linking the Cayman liquidation with the Texas cases? Sorry if I have mis-read.

The VN team are currently investigating Frontera Resources Holdings (FRH) a U.S. subsidiary that was wound up years ago, they are not investigating FRC itself.

From our perspective, Information on FRH related financial transactions might shed light on how FRC used FRH for funding, does that evidence match what is on the public record, testimony might reveal other names and parties that PI’s are unaware of, and so on.

We can clearly see that SN appears to be funding his personal defense in Texas. I know Lifeishard and others take SN active defense in the Vicky case as a positive sign, but it is worth keeping in mind when following these cases that by contrast, as the public record and the liquidators’ updates indicate, there has been no corresponding funding or concrete action from him to support or reverse FRC’s liquidation despite his earlier statements saying he would do so.

Good to hear some folks are still around.

These cases are worth keeping an eye on as certain information might add to the historical record of what happened to FRC.

Despite seemingly unable to settle a small bank debt, SN continues to maintain an impressive, and expensive, roster of lawyers and law firms to represent his personal interests.

A follow-up to my last post,

VN v. SN – VN’s team has now requested records from parties involved in the family’s estate planning and financial transactions. These include certain (historical) FRC entities, such FRH, as part of their forensic accounting review.

SN’s bank-related debt – The court has again denied the debt collector’s latest attempt to progress the case. This was a procedural, not an on-the-merits ruling. The collection agency must now follow due process or abandon the case.

I won’t give blow-by-blow coverage of these cases (I suspect few posters remain) but the move by VN is substantive. Also, if SN prevails and this moves to arbitration, then the VN case will likely be removed from the public record.

In addition to the previously noted hearing on arbitration and related matters, the docket also shows -

3 September – Motion to enter judgment in Mourant v. Nicandros.

20 October – FIC v. Nicandros, Motion for trial on merits. This appears to be a court-generated scheduling order and since one of SN’s attorneys withdrew earlier this year and no further filings have been made, this date may be subject to change.

Separately, the New York City bankruptcy court has requested an update on the FIC case, as that proceeding remains stayed pending developments in Texas.

As for the matter involving Nicandros and a small bank-related debt, the responsibility for pursuing continuation now rests with the debt management company, which will need to determine its next course of action.

Cayman - The court is currently in summer recess until mid-September. There is no indication yet that Deloitte sought direction from the court pre-recess, or how they intend to proceed post-recess.

Deloitte has confirmed that there have been “no developments in the liquidation” of FRC and that “the delay in finalizing the dissolution” is unrelated to any new action on their part.

This suggests that Deloitte is not re-opening the liquidation and that no material issue ("no developments") has arisen to delay the process. The delay appears to be procedural or administrative in nature.

That said, the fact that the process remains incomplete means FRC is still in liquidation limboland until further steps are taken by either Deloitte or the court.

Deloitte has not indicated when this might occur. I will continue to try and engage with them when possible, though there can be no guarantee they will offer any further information.

This is not "new news" and this filing was originally posted by Ziggy way back in January 2024, when the order was originally made. The date can be clearly seen on the filing as 16/1/24.

Cazbraz - That document has been publicly available on Deloitte’s FRC page since 9th March. It was also shared here by WHamBoy and discussed at that time.

Generally speaking, if you bought your shares via a trading account you can claim a loss, but if bought via an ISA type account then you cannot make a claim. For the most accurate position, it’s best to check with your broker, trading platform or UK tax office.

Cazbraz - That document has been publicly available on Deloitte’s FRC page since 9th March. It was also shared here by WHamBoy and discussed at that time.

Generally speaking, if you bought your shares via a trading account you can claim a loss, but if bought via an ISA type account then you cannot make a claim. For the most accurate position, it’s best to check with your broker, trading platform or UK tax office.

The report confirms that lobbying officially ended June 2025.

https://lda.senate.gov/filings/public/filing/eb8bdb5c-6b9c-4b9e-8109-16afc1d4abda/print/

The Court is scheduled to hear MO’s Motion for Entry of Judgment on Wednesday, September 3rd. SN has already filed an opposing motion.

This case centers on the question of who bears responsibility for what is now over US$1.3 million in unpaid legal fees and related costs, the non-payment of which triggered the winding up of FRC.

Dulwichman - there are two agreements in this case, both of which contain a version of this clause ( this one from the first agreement) -

“Nicandros will execute and deliver to Mourant a guaranty agreement guarantying payment of the Promissory Note and Settlement Payment.”

I think that likely explains the latest move which attempts to reframe the case and downplay SN's role and liability.

Lifeishard - understood, but keep in mind that those arguments have not been presented in support of this case, and the outcome will be only decided on what is presented in court and supported by evidence.

Lifeishard - I’m not sure how you pulled that interpretation from my post, but the defense goes something like this:

“Yes, we all agreed to a settlement with clear deadlines and specific amounts. And yes, we agreed on the consequences if we failed to meet them.

Despite that, we didn’t pay, not a single cent. So Mourant took the enforcement action that the agreement clearly allowed.

But because Mourant enforced what we had previously agreed to, we can now claim we can’t pay (even though when we could pay, we didn’t), and therefore the deal should be voided. In other words, it’s not our breach of the settlement that’s the problem, it’s Mourant's attempt to hold us to the settlement terms we agreed to (and the consequences should we fail).”

SN’s position is that enforcing the default is somehow the real problem, not the failure to pay as agreed.

Seems they are adopting something akin to a "Catch-22" defense -

1. Nicandros seeks the denial of Plaintiff Mourant Ozannes’ Motion For Entry of Judgment Pursuant to The Parties Settlement Agreement (“Mourant Motion”).

BASIS FOR DENIAL

MOURANT OZANNES HAS MADE FRONTERA RESOURCES CORPORATION’S PERFORMANCE IMPOSSIBLE

2. Mourant Ozannes (“Mourant”) admits, Paragraph 6 of Mourant’s Motion, that a key provision of the proposed settlement was Frontera Resources Corporation’s (“Frontera”) agreement to pay $1,250,939.16 to Mourant.

3. Mourant and Frontera are both domiciled in the Cayman Islands

4. However, Mourant made it impossible for Frontera Resources to pay the agreed amount. Mourant did so by initiating a winding up petition against Frontera in accordance with Section 92(d) of The Companies Act (2023 Revision). On January 16, 2024, as a result of Mourant’s petition, The Grand Court of The Cayman Islands, Financial Services Division issued a “Winding Up” order against Frontera.

5. In other words, Mourant’s deliberate action created a proceeding equivalent under Cayman Island’s law to a receivership with the sole purpose of liquidation of the company. By the Order of The Grand Court Mr. Grant Hiley and Mr. Michael Green of Deloitte & Touche, LLP, Cayman Islands were appointed as Joint Official Liquidators of Frontera. Frontera, with the appointment of the Joint Official Liquidators, no longer had any ability to pay Mourant as all assets were transferred to the sole control of the Joint Official Liquidators.

6. Mourant’ s own deliberate action to make it impossible for Frontera to pay its debt has rendered the settlement, including the agreement to enter into an agreed judgment, null and void. Mourant has, by its action, breached the foundation of the settlement agreement to which Frontera had agreed.

Conclusion

7. Frontera and Nicandros assert that Mourant’s deliberate initiation of the Cayman Islands liquidation proceeding breaches the terms of their respective

agreements.

PRAYER

Defendant Steve Nicandros respectfully requests this Court to:

1. To set a hearing on Mourant’s Motion;

2. And after the hearing to deny Plaintiff Mourant Ozannes’ Motion For Entry of Judgment Pursuant To The Parties Settlement Agreement and set this case for trial;

3. Grant him any other relief, at law or in equity, to which he may be entitled

It would seem the draft law has been approved - "The unipartisan parliament approved a package of amendments to the Law "On Oil and Gas" in the third reading, which brings the exploration and production of natural hydrogen into the legislative framework....In addition, the draft law grants the state oil company the right to act as an investor on behalf of the state and conduct extraction in those license blocks that are free."

https://bm.ge/news/otsnebam-bunebrivi-tsyalbadis-mopovebis-samartlebrivi-charcho-daamtkitsa

Lifeishard – Hydrogen exploration incentives aside, the GG is proposing a shift that would allow the State, via a national oil company, to move from being primarily a licensing authority to also acting as a producer. It’s not a free-for-all, as formal approval would still be required for each project.

These changes appear to address gaps in the current legal set-up and would give the State Agencies a fallback option when some tenders fail, investment interest is lacking in certain projects, proposals don’t meet necessary criteria, and so on.

For now, this remains a draft bill.

The article I just shared notes: “In addition, the State, in the form of a national oil company, will also have the opportunity to carry out oil and gas operations (the current version of the law does not provide for the mechanism for the implementation of oil and gas operations by the state).”

You might recall that the State has already operated on Block 12, which is true. However in that instance, the State required special dispensation from the court in order to do so.

The GG is proposing amendments to its O&G Law that would allow for state-owned enterprises to directly operate on available oil and gas blocks. The changes would also permit existing license holders to incorporate hydrogen exploration into their current PSAs.

"Investors and the state will have the opportunity to carry out natural hydrogen exploration and extraction operations. The relevant amendments are included in the Law "On Oil and Gas", which the uniparty parliament is considering in an expedited manner.

"According to the explanatory note to the legislative package, its adoption will make it possible to extract a completely new resource - natural hydrogen, which has not been done before not only in Georgia but also in the entire region.

Under the Production Sharing Agreement and the General License for the Use of Oil and Gas Resources established by law, the investor will be granted the right to carry out natural hydrogen exploration and production operations along with oil and gas exploration and production.

"The investor will have the opportunity, within the framework of the general license for the use of oil and gas resources, to carry out not only oil and gas exploration and production operations, but will also be granted the right to carry out natural hydrogen operations. Accordingly, the investor is given more motivation to carry out oil and gas operations in Georgia, since he will increase his income as a result of the sale of natural hydrogen. Since the analogous scheme of distribution of oil and gas with the state does not apply to the extracted natural hydrogen, the extracted natural hydrogen will be fully transferred to the investor," the document states.

In addition, the state, in the form of a national oil company, will also have the opportunity to carry out oil and gas operations (the current version of the law does not provide for the mechanism for the implementation of oil and gas operations by the state) as well as natural hydrogen operations. The amendments establish the necessary norms for the National Oil Company to conduct oil and gas, as well as natural hydrogen, exploration and production operations on free license blocks on behalf of the state.

"According to the proposed amendments, this is possible if the project developed for the exploration and production of oil and gas is granted the status of a strategically important project. The issue of granting such status will be decided by the Government of Georgia by decree. Within the framework of the aforementioned amendments, the National Oil Company will carry out oil and gas operations and natural hydrogen operations in accordance with the Production Sharing Agreement."

The full article is here -

https://bm.ge/news/shesadzlebeli-gakhdeba-bunebrivi-tsyalbadis-mopoveba-ra-itsvleba-navtobisa-da-gazis-shesakheb-kanonsh

SN isn’t denying he owes money, at least not yet, because this case is focused on his duties and conduct as a fiduciary. One reason no specific sum is claimed is that the petitioner doesn’t yet know the full scale of the alleged losses.

SN’s response is mostly procedural as he is pushing for arbitration. If the case does stay in court and the plaintiff later identifies a more specific dollar amount then they could amend this case to include that sum, or, if the court eventually rules in the sisters favor, file a separate claim for damages.

SN has responded to VNE’s petition with a General Denial and is invoking an arbitration clause in the trust agreement to move the matter out of court and into private arbitration.