Member Info for Madpunter

The banks and brokers who lent the shares who would be out of pocket might chase the shorters. The SEC might prosecute if there's evidence of racketeering.

Even if it doesn't get back to market and there's a buy out and special dividend, the money owed will be pursued IMHO. However, and still IMHO their biggest concern may be possible racketeering charges and extradition. There was an article that mentioned possible racketeering charges concerning FRR. Remember the arbitration was leaked to the market by Tw etc al. Hence, the shorting, which was exacerbated by possible naked shorting by YA. Mr Big awaits.

That could imply early, as it's in the first quarter of 2024. Otherwise, I would have used in the early part of the first quarter of 2024. IMHO it was left ambiguous to give the extra time if there's any delays. Therefore, from past experience of SOLG and timelines, I expect it towards the end of March.

It doesn't state early in the first part of Q1. It states early Q1 in 2024. I read that as it's early in 2024 and will be in Q1. Therefore, I don't expect it until the end of March.

Therefore, the benefit of risking failure to Frontera, is only to the enemies of Frontera, IMHO.

As Looed points out, under the terms of the MoU, if FRUS fails to adhere to the terms, the GOGC gets Block 12 and we all lose out. Why then would Tenners take this possible risk, as there seems to be no benefit? The only possible benefit I can envisage is TW et al, who were suspected of shorting FRR, might not be chased for money if Fronters fails. Also, it may reduce the chances of being investigated for racketeering and a possible extradition to meet Mr Big.

Typical take overs are 1-5% of the in ground value for non-producing mines and 5-10% for producing mines.

Proximity to infrastructure (ports, transport, water and electricity) is good for Alpala and decades of mine life also increases value. 1-5% of the $168bn value equates to a share price of 44p - 223p. IMHO the lower price would trigger counter offers.

I remember when FRR was very cautious at shareholder presentations, as they believed that some enemies of the company had bought shares to be able to attend. Cheesy was wrongly accused if my memory is correct. There have been many enemies and at the time in question, I think that TW et al were high on the list. It is obvious to most on here why SN has to keep his cards close to his chest. IMHO anyone who doesn't understand the reasons for Frontera keeping schtum is possibly one of those enemies or not very bright. There's more risk of harm to the company than getting a result from the liquidator's. As tsbs1 pointed out big companies with money and lawyers haven't been able to get monies owed, hence the liquidation of FRC. Therefore, it's best to wait and let events unfold otherwise there's the possibility of risk to Frontera and it's shareholders (that includes us, as I believe SN is on our side. I've given my reasons for this belief numerous times).

I'm hoping that the shares were transferred 1 for 1. I wonder if the costs incurred and fees for the current lawyers could be paid with shares that were owned by ZM, YA and SH/O. YA might still have preference shares that could be converted to shares held by Frontera in the treasury and SH/O might have held shares below the threshold for reporting. Just a thought. Wishing for a 'If Carlsberg did share transfers'...! We can only dream.

Abkaz - If you don't see the problem of the company opening up communication with shareholders, let me remind you of some of the past events.

In 2008 after FRR struck oil, Putin invaded Georgia.

SH/O twice tried to get control of the assets via liquidation.

The GD and BI have hampered the development of Block 12.

The GG have tried to take back Block 12 via arbitration.

Plus there's the geopolitics of the region to consider.

I know it's frustrating and I've even had to argue with Looed in the past about involving investigative journalism. Thankfully, Looed now can see the possible dangers of Frontera communicating too soon. The risk versus reward is just too far towards the former IMHO. Plus if we've been taken for a ride by SN and the board, what would be the benefit of finding out earlier, when the liquidator's, SH/O, Mourant and YA couldn't even get get a result. IMHO SN has too much to lose with his family reputation and links with the Atlantic Council. Plus I don't just think the lobbying resulted in members of the senate and congress representing FRR, but I also think some are possibly invested, as well as the rumours of CIA money. The political implications are too big for the company to have shafted shareholders IMHO, when the geopolitics are taken into account.

0.2875 was the last price.

ODR1 - Shareholders haven't been detrimental to Frontera. However, YA were taken to court for selling shares they didn't own and Mourant were dropped as Frontera's lawyers. Therefore, there's reasons why SN doesn't want to pay them. As for YJ, we don't know if they've been paid.

Dave73 - I think it would have to be a film trilogy to be able to tell this story. It might be an idea for funding by selling the film rights, if field development is required before a possible sale. Perhaps Looed or JimSlade could pass on this idea, as it might be an avenue that hadn't been explored.

Thanks Looed. I wasn't particularly worried about SN transferring our shares as per my discussion with tsbs1, but it's still nice to remove any doubts.

It would be nice if ZM's shares weren't transferred, but I wouldn't want them given to SH/O. I still think SH/O have come to a CRS, hence the liquidated funds. I wouldn't rule out shares for the lawyers rather than SH/O, but we'll have to wait until everything unfolds.

Bl***Y predictive text, it should be SN's and not Dan's.

Tsbs1 - SN is hardly an incompetent buffoon if he's still in control of the asset after all these court cases and different entities trying to steal the asset. The only ones we know are shafted are those who've tried to steal the asset and the lawyers who were involved at the time. Shafting those people is not going to hurt Dan's family name, especially if he's stood by us shareholders.

SN has the family name to uphold and with his Atlantic Council work, plus the Senators and Congressmen who have lobbied for the company, I just can't believe that us shareholder's would be shafted. I also think that there's a strong possibility of some of these people being shareholders and also a possibility of the CIA owning shares.

Perhaps SH/O needed to liquidate the two funds to pay a CRS to FRR. It would explain why Mourant and YA hadn't been paid, if FRR was still waiting for money from SH/O.

First letter changed to a capital.

www.interpressnews.ge

Www.interpressnews.ge