Member Info for Looed

Not sure if there is anything in this but when clicking on the old website - www.fronteraresources.com - you would get a "page not found" type message.

Clicking on it now takes you to a to a blank white screen.

This is how YA briefly summarise their position in one of the more recent filings -

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate must be denied because the June 22, 2020 Order to Enforce Foreign Judgment is a final judgment. This Court’s plenary power expired 30 days after that final judgment was ordered, and the Motion to Vacate is therefore untimely. Frontera also missed the deadline to file an appeal of the UK proceedings, and it has mischaracterized the posture of that case in the Motion presently before the court. Personal service of the UK Action on Frontera’s Vice President satisfied due process, and the UK Judgment is valid and enforceable as a judgment of this court. Finally, the Motion to Stay should be denied, because Frontera has not met the requirements for a stay under the statute, and this court should not condone Frontera’s repeated attempts to delay post-judgment discovery and YA’s collection of its lawfully-obtained judgment.

6/22 Order based on Chapter 36 (repealed) no Chapter 36A (current)
CHAPTER 36 (repealed 6/1/2017)
• Allowed automatic recognition of foreign- country judgment to occur without hearing
• Permitted recognition to occur by use of Chapter 35 State & Federal Court “domestication procedure”
• “Domestication procedure” required only filing of authenticated copy of foreign judgment for recognition to automatically occur without hearing; right to enforce was immediate
CHAPTER 36A (effective 6/1/2017)
• Requires recognition of judgment of foreign nation as mandatory prerequisite to right to enforce
• Recognition is no longer mandatory or automatic
• Prohibits use of prior Chapter 35 “domestication procedure”
• Grants judgment debtor the opportunity to defend against recognition
• Permits suit & related proceedings to be stayed pending appeal
of foreign judgment

STAY this lawsuit pending resolution of the UK Appeal
• § 36A.008: “If a party establishes than an appeal from a foreign-country judgment is pending or will be taken, the court may stay any proceedings with regard to the foreign-country judgment until . . .”
• Application to Set Aside UK Judgment is pending.
– necessary first step in UK appeal process.
– no direct right of appeal: default judgment is “administrative act” not “judicial decision.” – if denied, appeal will be taken.
• Harm if no stay: burdensome/moot discovery and risk of inconsistent rulings.

Relief Requested
• Stay all proceedings in this Court because an appeal of the UK Default Judgment is “pending or will be taken”
• or
• Vacate the 6/22 Order because it is based on a repealed statute that permitted automatic recognition of a foreign-country judgment, not the current statute that grants the judgment debtor an opportunity to defend against recognition

The presentation was prepared by Haynesboone

Pt.1
Background
4/20 UK Court issues default judgment against Frontera for £2,286,202.87
6/11 Plaintiff filed “Petition to Enforce a Foreign Judgment” in this Court
• Requests UK Judgment be “filed and domesticated” under repealed Chapter 36 • Does not seek “recognition” under current Chapter 36A
6/17 Return of Service for Petition filed.
6/22 Order to Enforce Foreign Judgment signed.
[July-October] Subpoenas/discovery served by Plaintiffs
10/28 Frontera files “Application to Set Aside UK Default Judgment” in UK Court • mandatory first step in process to obtain appellate review

Relief Requested: STAY all proceedings or VACATE 6/22 Order
• Stay all proceedings in this Court because an appeal of the UK Default Judgment is “pending or will be taken.”
OR
• Vacate the 6/22 Enforcement Order because it
o is based on a repealed statute that permitted automatic recognition of a foreign-country judgment,
o not the current statute that denies automatic recognition and mandates that the judgment debtor an opportunity to defend against recognition.

This Court has power to STAY or VACATE 6/22 order.
• Court’s inherent power over its judgments is broad and never expires.
• Chapter 36A expressly authorizes a stay under circumstances presented here.
• 6/22 Order is not a final appealable judgment, and can be vacated:
• No language of finality
• Tracks repealed Chapter 36, not current Chapter 36A: nullity under
controlling statutory scheme
• Ineffective, interlocutory ruling premised on a repealed statute.

VACATE the 6/22 Order
• Not asking the Court to rule that UK Judgment is invalid.
• Not asking the Court to rule that service was invalid.
• Asking Court to rule that 6/22 Order is void because it
– is premised on a repealed statute – Chapter 36 – and a “domestication shortcut” that permitted a foreign county judgment to be recognized immediately without a hearing;
– ignores the current statute – Chapter 36A – which affords a defendant the opportunity to present grounds for non-recognition; and
– was entered just 5 days after the return of service, denying Frontera any opportunity to present grounds for non-recognition.

Jeremiah99 - nope it wasn't a dream. I thought I had taken most of the political stuff out and didn't post the link but I did think it relevant to FRR. It was good see that events are still being linked over there in a 'big picture' kind of way.

FRR response to the latest submission to the court by YA

RE: YA II PN, Ltd. v. Frontera Resources Corporation,
Cause No. 2020-34974, 61st Civil District Court, Harris County, Texas
Proposed Order For December 10, 2010 Hearing at 1:30 P.M.
Dear Judge Phillips:
Enclosed is Frontera Resources Corporation’s proposed Order for its Motion To Stay Proceedings Or Vacate Enforcement Order scheduled to be heard at
1:30 P.M. on December 10, 2020.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

ORDER ON
61ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT
FRONTERA RESOURCES CORPORATION’S
MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS OR VACATE ENFORCEMENT ORDER AND
MOTIONS FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND MOTIONS TO QUASH
AND
YA II PN, LTD’S MOTION TO COMPEL AND OMNIBUS OPPOSITION
On December 10, 2020 the following motions came before this Court in a combined hearing:
Defendant Frontera Resources’:
(1) Motion To Stay Proceedings Or Vacate Enforcement Order; (2) Motions For Protective Order, as to:
(a) Zions Bancorporation;
(b) Cornerstone Governmental Affairs;
(c) Amegy Bank;
(d) Frontera Resources Corporation;
(3) Motions To Quash Depositions, as to:
(a) Gerard Bono;
(b) Frontera Resources Corporation.
Plaintiff YA II PN, Ltd.’s:
(4) Motion To Compel Defendant Frontera Resources Corporation To Respond To Plaintiff’s First Request For Production of Documents;
(5) Omnibus Opposition To Defendant’s Motions To Quash Subpoena and Deposition Notices.
ORDER ON COMBINED HEARING YA II PN, LTD. V. FRONTERA RESOURCES CORPORATION OF DEFENDANT AND PLAINTIFF MOTIONS PAGE 1 OF 3
12/9/2020 2:25 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 48791712 By: Tiffany Jefferson Filed: 12/9/2020 2:25 PM
Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk
This Court considered the foregoing Motions, the pleadings on file, the law and the argument of counsel for both Defendant and Plaintiff. The Court finds the following Orders should be entered.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

(there follows lots of signed / declined sections for each motion)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF ADDITIONAL COUNSEL
12/8/2020 10:57 AM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 48732446 By: Brenda Espinoza Filed: 12/8/2020 10:57 AM
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 61ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Plaintiff YA II PN, Ltd, files this Notice to advise the Court of the appearance of additional counsel on its behalf. Jack D. Ballard, of the firm Bressler Amery & Ross, PC will be appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff in this case along with Mary Jo Cantu, at the upcoming hearing on pending motions.
Dated: December 8, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
BRESSLER, AMERY & ROSS, P.C.

From the company website - Jack Ballard is the Managing Principal of Bressler’s Houston office. He has substantial experience and expertise in securities litigation and arbitration matters, commercial litigation and employment disputes. Jack is Board Certified in Civil Trial Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization

Kdashian - thanks.

If someone could help to check it out and paste if they think worthwhile - I can see a bit at the bottom about "This is where we open a window of opportunity...to solve other unresolved issues" though I expect he is referring to Georgia though it is talking about oil and Russia

facebook.com/zaza.mamulaishvili.52

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbesPgnJWLU

This is the accompanying article,

Socialist deputies registered two important initiatives in the parliamentary Secretariat today. One of them provides for the abolition of the law, which shifts the payment of the debt for the "theft of the century"on the shoulders of the population. Another initiative of the psrm is aimed at canceling the concession of 40% of the territory of Moldova to an American company. For more information, see the following article.

Socialists demand to cancel the law on payment of the debt which has arisen as a result of theft of billion by citizens of the country. This law was adopted in 2016 by the government of Pavel Filip.

Petru Burduja - MP from the psrm

"In 2016, during the government of Filip, a rather delicate procedure took place concerning the guarantee of obligations on the part of the state to repay the debt for the billion rubles stolen from the banking system of the Republic of Moldova. Today, the amount is 13.5 billion. the annual percentage of lei has turned into about 25 billion lei. LEI'S. The psrm faction proposes to cancel the law on the issue of bonds arising from state guarantees»

The socialists expressed hope that this project will be supported by other factions, because it is put forward in the interests of the entire population of Moldova. Another initiative is aimed at canceling the agreement signed by the government of Philip on the transfer of forty percent of the territory of Moldova to the concession of an American company for a period of 40 years.

Radu Mudryak - MP from the psrm

"In 2017, when the psrm faction summoned the government to Parliament on a very interesting issue – the concession of 40% of the territory of Moldova to the American company Frontera Resources International for a period of 40 years. At those hearings, we were presented with extremely misleading reports. Given that we still don't have any clarity. And given that the concession procedure was secret and non-transparent, despite the fact that we did not ask the opinion of 1 person in Moldova, 1 mayor, or 1 local or district Council, we announce that from today we will begin the procedure for canceling this concession agreement."

Recall that in 2017, the government, led by Pavel Filip, granted the American company Frontera Resources International the right to explore and geological assessment of forty percent of the territory of the Republic of Moldova (oil, natural gas) with subsequent exploitation. This gave the company the right to explore for 40 years the territory in the perimeter of the settlements of Ungheni-basarabyaska. For its part, Frontera Resources International has committed to invest $ 6 million over the first five years, with an additional $ 50-100 million in the event of discovery and subsequent exploitation.

A variation on the post by Oopsi -

PSRM deputies will initiate the procedure to cancel the contract, signed by the government, whereby 40 percent of the territory of the Republic Of Moldova was given in concession to an American company. The statement was made by the socialist Radu Mudreac during a press briefing.

"In 2017, PSRM invited the government for hearings on the interesting topic – the 40-year concession of 40% of the territory of the Republic Of Moldova to Frontera Resources International, where some misleading reports were presented. It was a covert, non-transparent procedure. No citizen of the Republic Of Moldova was consulted, but it ended with the hidden granting of this territory. We begin the procedure to cancel this concession,” Mudreac said.

We recall that the government led by Pavel Filip has granted the American company Frontera Resources International the right to prospecting and geological assessment of 40% of the territory of the Republic Of Moldova (oil, natural gas), with subsequent exploitation. Thus, the executive offered the right of exploration for a period of 40 years, in the territorial perimeter of Ungheni – Basarabeasca. For its part, the company Frontera Resources International was obliged to make investments of 6 million US dollars in the first 5 years, with another about 50-100 million dollars in case of identification and subsequent exploitation of the deposits.

http://evenimentul.md/socialistii-cer-anularea-contractului-privind-concesionarea-a-40-din-teritoriul-tarii/

No, it's not you. Messages have disappeared.

ODR - I did see the message and it now seems your reply mentioning me has also gone missing. The poster has a point in that many of the translations do contain the same talking points. I also believe we have learned a great deal from them.

If you scan the translations from approx. end of July to now (p6 onwards in the translation archive) I do detect a gradual change in tone, content, direction and delivery. The same talking points still come up, but with ever reducing frequency. The talk gets a bit more grounded.

In the same time frame you had various Ministers stating / offering a variety of inducements to the company.

Also in the same time frame - the US Ambassador spoke positively about the proposed talks with FRR. Stateside we had the actions by the US congressional committees and the passing of a clause that allowed for sanctions if certain conditions where not met. It would seem the visit by Pompeo was well received.

I am not suggesting his visit was dependent on all things-FRR, but he has been involved in our case i.e. the letters from Senators. The US preference has always been to work with the current administration or at least a better disciplined version of it. The recent visit and threat of sanctions means those in power - hopefully - can no longer get away with simply saying the right things, they actually need to put them into action. Time will tell.

The threat of sanctions has been lifted. Currently the press focus is on regional security and Anaklia Port as these issues are currently without resolution.

The entities in Cayman and Texas are active and ZM has commented a few times that the company is going through a restructure.

As a balance / supplemental to this, I recommend the last post by Mole

Cheers Puddy - paid in full :)

Thanks cazbraz. He is posting more these past few days so lets hope he drops another FRR related one soon.

Another day another post - this seems to be a Zaza as a talking head type of post about "Chatham House Rules". I can't copy as can only see it on my mobile but if anyone wants to take a look and share its available at m.facebook.com/zaza.mamulaishvili.52

Pt.3

in this case, the Cabinet's decision on the non-competitive transfer of the right to develop to Naftogaz can be easily canceled. Just as the above-mentioned competition for "Dolphin", held by the government of Vladimir Groysman, was canceled at the time.

https://www.dsnews.ua/economics/pust-poprobuet-pochemu-razrabotku-shelfa-chernogo-morya-otdali-kobolevu-26112020-407535

Pt.2

However, the contest was problematic from the very beginning, as it was held against the background of a change of government. For example, the then head of the office of the new President, Andrey Bogdan, called for an extension of the terms of its holding (to allow large international companies to participate), but the competition Commission formed by the "old" government refused to do so.

In the end, everything went wrong: outgoing Prime Minister Vladimir Groysman did not approve the results of the competition (in which Ilya Ponomarev's Trident Black Sea won), and after that the new Cabinet of Ministers headed by Alexey Goncharuk simply canceled everything. The "green" government did not want to legitimize the decisions of its predecessors, whom it mercilessly criticized.

The new authorities have started work on holding a repeat competition — in February of this year, there were options to put up for competition the "Dolphin" section in the form of two lots. However, in the end, it all came down to the current decision of the Cabinet of Ministers to give the attraction of the investor to Andrey KOBOLEV without any competitions.

One of the reasons for this move is that the current authorities will not be able to attract a major international investor in this project,as Vladimir Groysman had hoped.

Mikhail Gonchar, President of the Strategy XXI center for global studies, believes that the best solution for the project would be to create an international consortium with companies like Exxon and Shell, but today, in conditions of war, they will not come to this project. "They understand that the inviolability of investments is not guaranteed. Who can come is a medium-sized company that can take a risk, " he said, but found it difficult to name at least likely applicants.

According to Mikhail Gonchar, it will not be possible to attract respectable investors yet, and therefore it is better to give" Dolphin "to Naftogaz.

There is another version of the appearance of the Cabinet of Ministers ' decision-the shelf development project was given into the hands of Naftogaz temporarily, until the current government finds a specific buyer for it.

As you know, the son of the newly elected us President Joe Biden hunter since 2014 was a member of the Board of Directors of Burisma, which is one of the largest gas producers in Ukraine, and one of its co — owners is Azarov's former Minister of ecology and natural resources Mykola Zlochevsky. Although Biden Jr.'s lawyer said his client left Burisma in April 2019, there is no doubt that he still has good connections in The industry. And where are the guarantees that in the future, when Joe Biden settles in the White house, they will not grow into the implementation of larger projects, such as the development of the black sea shelf?

in this case, the Cabinet's decision on the non-competitive transfer of the right to develop to Naftogaz can be easily canceled. Just

Another version - not sure if it clarifies FRR involvement (FRR is mentioned)

Pt.1

Naftogaz of Ukraine will prepare a project to attract investors to develop the black sea shelf in the next 30 years. What made the government take such a step after unsuccessful contests to find investors?

The Cabinet of Ministers has finally decided who exactly will be engaged in gas exploration and production on the Ukrainian part of the Black sea shelf. On November 25, it became known that by his decree, without any competition, he gave this right to the National joint-stock company "Naftogaz of Ukraine"for 30 years.

NAC is aimed at speeding up the development process of the field — the head of the company's management Board, Andrey KOBOLEV, said on his Facebook page that within a few months after receiving the license, it is possible to start seismic exploration and then drill the first wells.

However, Naftogaz will not develop the shelf on its own — this requires huge resources, which it does not have. As well as there are no tools — all the equipment for gas production on the shelf remained in the Russian-occupied Crimea. Therefore, Naftogaz will work to prepare this project as efficiently as possible in order to attract international companies to it.

Timeline of failure

Recall that the previous attempt to attract an investor to develop the shelf failed. In April last year, the Ukrainian government announced a competition for the development of hydrocarbons within the "Dolphin" section on The black sea shelf (and now we are essentially talking about it) under the terms of a production sharing agreement (PSA). The initiator of the contest and later one of its participants was the company with American roots Frontera Resources of businessmen Steve Nikandros and Zaza Mamulaishvili, which the media associated with people's Deputy Igor Kononenko and then adviser to the Minister of energy Vladimir Ignashchenko.

Another contender was the American company Trident Black Sea of former Russian state Duma Deputy Ilya Ponomarev, while its co-owners were Russian investment banker Vadim Komissarov and co-owner of the ATB retail chain Gennady Butkevich.

The competition was also attended by Ukrainian PJSC "Ukrnefteburenie" Igor Kolomoisky, people's Deputy Vitaly Khomutynnik and Russian businessman Gennady Fuchs. Caspian Drilling Company ("daughter" of the Azerbaijan state oil company SOCAR) also competed for "Dolphin", which refused to participate at the last moment.

It is noteworthy that the state-owned company "Ukrgazvydobuvannya" did not participate in the competition, which even before that claimed separate sections of the "Dolphin".

If this area is of interest there are lots of quite recent articles out there that talk about the challenges Naftogaz face - obstruction, interference, cronyism - the sort of thing we are all too familiar with. Try Atlantic Council and Kyiv Post sites