Member Info for Madpunter

Oopsi - I thought that you posted on Wednesday that the arbitration has already taken place :-

Thanks Bezzy. The text also uses the word "adjudicated" implying that it has happened. One of the recent articles over the xmas period about workers being laid off also referenced the arbitration having taken place in December, so further confirmation I think.

ODR - I assume you missed my post from earlier today, now that SR is back arguing about the repayments again, so I've copied the post below. You need to look up 'Entry of Appearance' to understand that when this happens a lawyer can request all documents in a case from both sides. The wording 'given and served upon' does not imply a summons or request on the new lawyer, it's just the legal speak of how the information requested is delivered. There's another example in the link below, from a lawyer representing a creditor in the case.

https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0117/ML011700475.pdf

Ziggy - PWC lawyer's have given a 'Notice of Appearance' and a 'Request for ECF Service of Documents' which ensures they 'receives notice of all documents filed with court by either side in that particular case' (copied from the legal definition below). PWC are non-party in the case, but IMHO as they are auditors for Frontera are entitled to know what has happened with FRCC since FTI have taken control. If FTI want information from PWC they will have to go through their lawyers and give 21 days notice under Rule 2002 (see second link).

The Entry of Appearance tells the circuit clerk’s office to make sure that the attorney receives notice of all documents filed with court by either side in that particular case and it also lets the clerk know that any decisions made by the judge in the case need to be sent to the attorney who filed the Entry of Appearance (copied from the link below).

https://www.columbiafamilylawgroup.com/blog/2019/august/what-is-an-entry-of-appearance-and-waiver-of-ser/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rule_2002

FTI was already recognised by the court by granting Chapter 15, therefore, IMHO the recognition hearing has been prompted by the appearance of PWC.

Ziggy - PWC lawyer's have given a 'Notice of Appearance' and a 'Request for ECF Service of Documents' which ensures they 'receives notice of all documents filed with court by either side in that particular case' (copied from the legal definition below). PWC are non-party in the case, but IMHO as they are auditors for Frontera are entitled to know what has happened with FRCC since FTI have taken control. If FTI want information from PWC they will have to go through their lawyers and give 21 days notice under Rule 2002 (see second link).

The Entry of Appearance tells the circuit clerk’s office to make sure that the attorney receives notice of all documents filed with court by either side in that particular case and it also lets the clerk know that any decisions made by the judge in the case need to be sent to the attorney who filed the Entry of Appearance (copied from the link below).

https://www.columbiafamilylawgroup.com/blog/2019/august/what-is-an-entry-of-appearance-and-waiver-of-ser/
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frbp/rule_2002

FTI was already recognised by the court by granting Chapter 15, therefore, IMHO the recognition hearing has been prompted by the appearance of PWC.

IMHO the recognition hearing is to finally liquidate FRCC by recognising events in the Caymens. The introduction of PWC by FRR requesting all the paperwork from the court has prompted FTI into the recognition hearing. Therefore, FTI will have to finally request the monies held by the bank accounts of FRCC and it's subsidiaries, or risk being accused up delaying to run up costs.

ODR - It is quite clear :-

'PwC-US hereby requests that any and all notices given or required to be given in these cases and all papers served or required to be served in these cases,'

They then go on to state all the papers required by them in the second part Taffy posted. If someone is to provide information in court they don't request all the paperwork with the case.

ODR - Furthermore, it's PWC that is requesting information from the court, not the court requesting information from PWC about it's client, FRR.

ODR - Yes, but FTI appear to have been stalling to allow time for SH/O to get shares from ZM and SN via the Texas case. If my assumptions are correct about enough money being left in FRCC or it's subsidiaries, then FTI could have accessed this money by now. We know that bills haven't been paid since FTI took control of FRCC and it's subsidiaries, therefore all monies from the sale of oil and gas will have gone into the bank accounts of the companies under FTI's control. If Zaza's statement in the Ukraine is correct it will be 500,000 barrels from 2018 and up to 2,000bopd since, which could be around 1,250,000 barrels for 2018 and 2019 combined. At the end of 2018 FRR had $1.8m and some of the 500,000 barrels would have not been paid for or sold with a 45 day wait for payment. Lets assume 800,000 barrels of revenue since @ $60/bbl = $48m, therefore (as the figures are conservative) in excess of $50m could be in the accounts.

IMHO PWC will be looking for the bank statements for FRCC and it's subsidiaries. IMHO if they're not in with all the paperwork provided, then FTI could be accused of delaying to run up costs. Therefore, I would expect FTI to provide the bank statements and assuming there's enough funds to cover the debts of FRCC, the liquidation will soon complete with any remaining monies returned to FRR.

Mick - If my assumptions are correct, then in the Texas case FRR could argue that there wouldn't be a case if the liquidation of FRCC wasn't delayed. Oopsi can correct me here, but I think Judges in the US have the power to contact banks and request relevant information.

IMHO the liquidation is still the key. Assuming FRR and the GG have come to a 50/50 ownership agreement about Block 12 (less the Eastern Basin Edge and Shallow Fields ), then the only hold up is the length of the PSA. IMHO this is due to the hold up of the 5% RA, which could be a dividend for FRR if a deal has already completed with the SM's, whereas it's included in the 50/50 split when returned prior to the deal. The California case could continue after a deal with all the assets in separate companies sold and FRR as a shell company with just the money for the case. IMHO once SH/O is paid via the liquidation (assuming my theory of enough money left in FRCC), then the Texas case and the California case become insignificant regarding a deal with the SM's. Furthermore,(still IMHO) when the PSA is extended from 7 years to 50 years, this will allow the Arbitrators to accept the deal between FRR and the GG.

Phil - Your forgetting about Russia and Nord-2. The quicker a deal with FRR, the GG and the SM's the more detrimental the effects are for Russia's influence over Europe's gas supply. If they scupper FRR's ability to do a deal, then they may get to eventually control Block 12. Think back to the cyber attack; the pro-Russia journalist's articles in the Ukraine; and further back the attempt of a deal with Hope through MND and VTB (a Russia based banking group). De-listing has allowed FRR to keep schtum, making it more difficult for it's enemies to subvert, but this opened the opportunity for propaganda.

Phil_2018 - It could be that the 70m needs to be paid by the GG before the Arbitrators accept the deal and suspend the process.

Scott_Chegg - I think you need to read my 'Propaganda' post from last night @ 23:21 again. Your post @ 17:33 implies that the $70bn is a fact, which it is not. It is just a possibility given the inaccuracies of the previous media articles and their translation. It could just as easily be $70m or 70m GEL from the GG as FRR would lose the $400m sunk costs, but gain 1% of the valuation if the PSA was disolved in exchange for a 50/50 ownership split. This small amount could be to pay any outstanding debts, court costs etc prior to a buyout by the SM's.

Yicklander - That's for recoverable assets, but when there's bookable reserves it's 5 - 10%. The Ukraine press release stated reserves of 30 TCF and more than 14 billion barrels of oil = 19.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent. IMHO this has been independently verified by BP with the drilling and the extended well testing of the Eldari B with T39.

Arsenal221 - Yes, but then the GG will have to wait years for the FDP infrastructure until peak oil and gas. They probably want money now, especially as they will still get a royalty due to the transit of the hydrocarbons through the pipelines. If part of the payment was in shares in the SM's, then the dividend could be similar or even more in the early years than the 51% under the PSA. Plus the GG would still have the shares and any lump sum paid as part of a sale of Block 12.

Awacker - Maybe technicalities because the arbitration is with the GOGC and not the GG, or perhaps those who are pro- Russia are trying to throw a spanner in the works.

In case anyone thinks $70bn is too big for Block 12, at today's Brent price of $66.87/bbl, 19.1bn barrels = $1277.217. Therefore, $70bn is 5.48% of the value of Block 12 and typical buyouts for reserves are between 5% and 10%.

https://oilprice.com/

Awacker - If FRR is the Contractor, then the Corporation who paid I assume is the GOGC, the Georgian Oil and Gas Corporation. Hence, the agreement with the GG which is why FRR want to suspend the arbitration.

When FRR were contesting the Dolphin tender there were articles in the Ukraine media written by pro-Russia journalists. The best propaganda not only has facts included, but new facts like FRR listing reserves rather than hydrocarbons in place or recoverable. However, the reserves stated TCM instead of TCF; billions of cubic feet instead of trillions of cubic feet; and millions of barrels of oil instead of billions of barrels. These mistakes prompted a press release by FRR stating reserves of 30 TCF of gas and more than 14 billion barrels of oil.
Now we have recent articles stating that the GG owns 50% of Block 12 instead of FRR owning 100% of Block 12, with the GG getting a 51% share of production under the PSA. Plus another stating that FRR are to get 70 million.
If the 70 million is in fact 70 billion for a buyout of Block 12, then maybe the GG want a share now rather than wait years until full production for their 51% under the PSA. Even if the GG relinquish their 51% share under the PSA, they will still get a royalty for the hydrocarbons that transit through the pipelines.

IMHO - The confidential information will be the pending deal with BP et al, which can't be signed until the 5% RA reverts to the GG. The 5% RA can't be returned to the GG until the NY liquidation of FRCC is completed, and the Texas case is just about SH/O trying to get shares instead of money.

Look at page 2 of the CV - Best lawyers in America; Top attorney's of North America; Lawyer of Distinction; Listed in Global Who's Who Best Lawyer; etc. etc. This is not an ambulance chaser run of the mill lawyer.