Member Info for Looed

Lifeishard – As Deloitte stated in their March 7 statement, efforts to revive FRC were still ongoing in early 2025, which aligns with the timing of the most recent lobbying disclosure. Also, given the previous payment patterns of parties connected to FRC, it might be possible that Cornerstone was engaged with a fixed-term retainer and is now filing reports against a prepaid balance rather than receiving new funds.

I believe Mourant’s claim might take precedence over the other cases, mostly because it appears to be approaching the end of its legal cycle. If the court grants the MO motion, and assuming any appeals are resolved, the judgement would be immediately enforceable so allowing Mourant to pursue recovery. This potentially places them ahead of other claims that remain at a much earlier stage.

Also, the FIC v SN case is still active, with a trial date scheduled for late October.

As you will recall, this case originally involved claims against both SN and ZM. Recently, the court agreed to sever the claims against ZM, making SN the sole focus of the current proceedings.

Mourant has now filed a "Motion for Entry of Judgment" against SN. If granted, the court would enter a formal judgment, enabling Mourant to pursue full enforcement of the outstanding amount - approx. $1.3m - from him.

Lifeishard - Deloitte did confirm in their public statements ongoing behind-the-scenes efforts including attempts to restructure and more recently to recover a significant debt owed by a former executive. It is possible Deloitte might touch on these efforts in any final report.

Following further - and clearly final - discussions with Deloitte, it is my understanding that the Court has now received the necessary paperwork to complete the process. As a result, Deloitte is winding down all their associated operations. While no definitive timeline has been provided, the tone of their response suggests that the conclusion of the process is imminent. Deloitte will update their FRC page in due course.

Life - understood, thanks.

Lifeishard - that weblink you posted is perhaps 10 years old and the information it contains is out of date.

I am not sure if you are accusing MO of being "East", but they are HQ'd in Jersey and this case involves their Cayman offices.

You might recall the long-running case known as Mourant Ozannes (MO) v SN, ZM, which centered on the enforcement of a foreign judgement related to unpaid legal fees owed to MO. It was SN’s failure to comply with the agreed settlement in that long running case that ultimately led to the current situation.

Recently, the court granted a petition by MO to sever the case into two separate and distinct proceedings. As a result, "MO v. SN, ZM" has now been split into "MO v. SN" and "MO v. ZM".

This severance likely preserves MO’s right to enforce judgment against SN without the need to address procedural complications related to ZM, while also preserving a separate legal claim by MO against ZM.

SN has retained legal counsel specialising in probate matters, which suggests he intends to contest the allegations. Once he is served, he will have 20 days to file a response, after which the court will likely set a docket schedule.

I won’t be posting updates on this case, in part because if the case proceeds then discovery is likely to be months away. However, if you would like to follow the case, you can do so via the various Harris County Court websites.

The webpage now reads "website expired"

Deloitte likely refer to it as an administrative dissolution because they are not seeking a court hearing to litigate any specific aspect of the process, nor are they requesting the court’s guidance at this stage, just the sign off.

B20 – Since this is a court-ordered compulsory liquidation, the Grand Court must approve Deloitte’s recommendation. As I understand it, all compulsory liquidations require final sign-off from the court before a company can be formally dissolved. So no matter how fast / slow Deloitte act, the process is ultimately dependent on the court schedule, hence the caveat I mentioned.

Lifeishard – You have no reason to feel stupid. While we all understand that AIM is a high-risk, speculative market, there was no way you could have anticipated how things would unfold with FRC. If the sales pitch had said, “Once we have your money, the CEO will seize the main asset and a series of other quite baffling events will follow,” I doubt any of us would have invested. You were unwittingly caught up in circumstances beyond your control, and post delist, offered no option to sell up and exit or stay.

WhamBoy – In theory, yes. We had similar expectations the last time Deloitte issued a statement, but this time the wording suggests they now have everything in place to move forward. It still appears they intend to complete the process via administrative strike-off, without the need for a court hearing.

The one possible caveat to that timeline is that the Cayman courts recess in August, so if the process isn’t completed before they break, it could potentially cause further delay.

Deloitte has advised that, following a delay in the process, the Liquidators will soon proceed with finalizing the company’s dissolution. A copy of the dissolution application will be published on their dedicated FRC webpage once it has been filed.

The Petition states the amount involved is “perhaps much more” than $14m, but VN is not currently suing SN for that sum. This case focuses on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and seeks general, not specific, damages at this stage. Unless the Petition is amended, and if VN prevails in court, a separate civil action may follow to recover the funds, depending on how the court addresses the issue.

The citation itself is correctly worded (as you point out), so I don’t think a typo in the motion will pose a serious issue. If the issue is raised by either side, it is something the court can quickly correct. What really matters is that the papers actually served are accurate.

The court has now granted the motion for substitute service. As so ordered, a copy of the citation is to be pinned to his front door and proof supplied to the court, upon which the court will consider him served.

There is a notation that the matter is “under advisement,” which seems to indicate that the court has not yet issued a decision on the motion and it remains under review.

The hearing on April 29th is procedural. VN’s legal team is asking the court for permission to serve SN by "alternative means", since he hasn’t been successfully served via the usual channels. The process server has filed reports stating that “he isn’t home,” or that "others at the property say they don’t know his whereabouts or when he will be back" and so on, so the court is being asked to approve alternative service instead. Standard stuff, and we have seen similar motions in other litigation. It appears that most, if not all, of the other defendants have now been served.