Member Info for Madpunter

Goit - After reading that article it looks promising. I've copied the relevant posts to the Frontera Archive :-

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=16

Tsbs - Your assuming that FRR will accept an OOCS. IMHO FRR won't accept an OOCS, unless the super majors want the court case finished by a certain date. There's a reason why the 'privileged information' has been kept under wraps, which I'm not going to disclose, assuming my understanding is correct. Patience is required to let this unfold and hopefully, we should have some idea about whether Discovery has been granted by the date of the next hearing.

Arsenal221 - IMHO there's no chance of FRR dropping the claim, unless the super majors just want to get on with a deal and don't want the distraction. Think of the evidence like an ace up FRR's sleeve. A card player wouldn't play the ace unless absolutely required and only at the appropriate time. IMHO this is why FRR's lawyers refer to having 'privileged information' which they cannot disclose to the court at this time. Just focus on the above and on the following :-
1) YA rolled over quickly and got off lightly.
2) Kickmuck's statement from the 19th December - Just to say that I'm certain our good old FRIEND Troy (and advisors) will get lots of nice Christmas cards again this year.
3) Zaza stated that FRR don't go to court unless they are certain that they will win.

Goit - IMHO SH/O doesn't want the case dismissed from the Californian Courts , unless it is with prejudice. IMHO the 'smoking gun' would then become the new evidence to enable an appeal in another jurisdiction. However, if Discovery is granted and produces the evidence required, then the 'smoking gun' becomes irrelevant (see the extract below from SH/O's lawyers on 13th June, posted by Taffy52 on the 16th June).

JURY DEMAND Defendants hereby demand trial by jury on all claims and defenses for which a right to jury trial exists. PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendants respectfully pray for judgment as follows: 1. Plaintiffs take nothing by virtue of this action, and that judgment be rendered in favor of Defendants or, upon consent by Defendants, that this action be dismissed with prejudice to re-filing;
https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=14

Dulwichman's post @ 13:52 has been copied to the Frontera Archive. Glad your recovering well!

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=16

I've copied bugsy-b's post from 22:03 yesterday to the Frontera Archive :-

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=16

IMHO this is an article aimed at the Ukraine tender process and is nothing to lose sleep about. As far as we know FRR hadn't even started work in Moldova. Furthermore, FRR was unlikely to start work in Moldova until the court case was concluded, or until a possible deal with the super majors was completed.

Zib - I don't think it will be many more months before we're in bars celebrating. As for the TW crew, hopefully they end up behind bars paying Mr Big just as you suggested for SH.

All this talk of SN and ZM rewarding themselves at our expense like some unscrupulous directors of some AIM companies.
1) Both directors have waived salaries not taken inflated salaries.
2 )They don't have lots of share options giving them free or cheap shares.
3) They have both lent money to FRR and then converted LN's to shares at 10x the share price.
4) They have both bought millions of dollars of shares in FRR at much higher prices than FRR traded at in the last few years.
5) Both have held respectable positions in organisations like the Atlantic Council.

Apart from the fact that FRR have a NDA in place, ask yourselves if knowing what has happened with SH/O, would it be wise to be open with all the facts over the last few years? If I was in ZM's and SN's shoes, I wouldn't have been anymore open with the facts until SH/O was gone, the court case finished and a deal completed with the super majors.

Zib - I'm sure that some of our friends over the pond will have bought shares in FRR. If some of the brokers representing them don't honour their obligations due to lending those shares, they may find themselves extradited. Mr Big may have a few more rich customers.

Bigun2 - HL complied with the 30 days rule, but other brokers did not comply. HL do not lend shares for shorting, but other brokers do lend shares. If the shares are removed from the ISA wrapper, then they go into a share trading account or a certificate is issued. Are some of these brokers worried about having to issue certificates as they have lent the shares? What happens if and when FRR relist (I strongly believe that FRR will relist), if some of the shorters haven't got the funds to replace the borrowed shares? Will some brokers and shorters be in trouble if FRR complete a deal with the super majors? There's been a recent petition to try and stop shorting, but if FRR get the deal we expect, then the shorting industry may be blown out of the water and have to change. I see no problem with shorting indicies and commodities, but for individual companies it is being exploited. The liquidity impact could be remedied by the MM's who can legally naked short to create a market. The downside would be the difficulty in obtaining finance for some companies with high risk. Perhaps PrimaryBid is an example of the way forward for such companies.

AJW - I assume WSnake was trying to buy at 0.06p to cover his short.

Your Isa or pension shares are being lent without your knowledge and it may force down their value (copied from the link below).
https://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2011/sep/02/lending-shares

Thankfully, I'm with HL who state - We do not lend stock held in our HL or PMS service (copied from the link below).
https://www.hl.co.uk/security-centre/how-safe-is-your-investment

I am with selftrade and have also not received my share certificates.
I have spoken to computer share and the occasions I wasn’t fobbed off to another department in another country I was told they no longer act for Frontera Resources so cannot put a stop on the missing certificates or issues new certificates. I have spoken to Tim at Yellow Jersey. He is aware of situation and suggests we keep emailing Frontera. I have emailed Frontera and have had no response. I have raised this with selftrade, awaiting a reply. Interestingly only shares held in crest were affected that’s why some still have their shares in their dealing accounts and are unaffected. I am wondering who is now responsible for reissuing the certificates. And has anyone who was meant to receive their certificates got them from computer share?

Is Tim at yellow Jersey suggesting that those who haven't received their share certificates contact Frontera, so that Frontera can compile a list of shares that were possibly loaned to shorters? If the shares have been lent out, then the suspension of trading will make it almost impossible for some of theses companies to provide certificates. The shorters can't close their position to provide the replacement shares/certificates that these companies have lent.

Quiet here this afternoon. I’ll spoil it by telling you my interpretation of Hope’s attempted takeover.

Obviously, Zaza thought the fiduciary case was necessary. He was right. I’m sure that it was the pressure of the impending case which caused Hope to make his move to take over the whole company - he wasn’t to know that he was only going to get a baited subsidiary until it was too late. But he had the fiduciary case pending, the passing time allowing FRR to become more solvent, and a strong possibility of discovery ruining him - so he had to wipe FRR out before the trial, which caused him to attempt the takeover. And as this was an obvious attempt at deliberately selling all the company’s assets for his own benefit, he had then to immediately resign as director or leave himself without a defence to an obvious, and very serious, fiduciary breach charge. So he jumped, no doubt thinking he could distance himself from the takeover while leaving his gang in charge of the company (“they’ve done what? Crikey. Nothing to do with me, gov.”). HaHaHard luck, mate. I would say that Zaza’s plan really worked. Hope has gone. Brilliant. The fiduciary case has already performed stirling work.

So are FRR going to proceed with the court case? If they do have very strong evidence to prove that Hope deliberately worked to seriously suppress the SP or otherwise bring about the decline and fall of FRR (and which couldn’t be said to be in the interest of Hope’s debt repayments), then FRR should go ahead with the trial. It could get Hope off our backs for good - and there are about 57 million other good reasons for proceeding, too. But if FRR do not have that very strong evidence, then stop the court case as soon as sensibility allows, and let’s get on with business.

If I’m right about Hope being forced to jump through fear of possible (probable?) strong evidence, then it really does look like that evidence exists. But only the main Frontera protagonists in this fight really know if it does. I wish them good luck.

ZM was also listed on page 11/12 of the first link below, which was from January 1st 2019. However, ZM is not listed on May 8th 2019 in the second link below ;-

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Transatlantic_Air_Power_and_What_to_Do_Now.pdf

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/about/board-of-directors

There have been plenty of posts about SN's past involvement with the Atlantic Council, but I can't remember reading about ZM being a director (see page 33/36 in the first link below and 116/117 in the second link below).

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Climate_Leadership_in_Uncertain_Times.pdf

https://issuu.com/atlanticcouncil/docs/downstream_oil_theft_web_0106

I've copied AJW's post from 08:43 to the Frontera Archive :-

http://www.lse.co.uk/view-general-chat-thread.asp?forum=commodities-and-mining&thread=41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322&page=16

Steve C. Nicandros Shareholding
Trade Date Action Notifier Price Currency Amount Holding
25-Aug-17 Placing Steve C Nicandros 0.1 GBX 40,207,168 1710901096
27-Jul-15 Buy Steve C Nicandros 0.8 GBX 11,079,417 200564530
12-Nov-12 Buy Steve C Nicandros 0.5 GBX 6,252,857 189485113
12-Nov-12 Buy Steve C Nicandros 0.49 GBX 2,250,000 189485113
09-Nov-12 Buy Steve C Nicandros 0.49 GBX 4,250,000 189485113
14-Feb-12 Buy Steve C Nicandros 1.07 GBX 1,230,000 159493473
29-Nov-11 Buy Steve C Nicandros 1.11 GBX 235,000 158263473
29-Nov-11 Buy Steve C Nicandros 1.01 GBX 915,000 158263473
04-Nov-11 Buy Steve C Nicandros 1.4 GBX 446,000 0
02-Oct-09 Transfer Steve C Nicandros 0 1,068,750 0
18-Sep-09 Placing Steve C Nicandros 10.3 GBX 3,565,675 0
19-Dec-08 Buy Steve Nicandros 25 GBX 100,000 0
03-Sep-08 Buy Steve Nicandros 66 GBX 15,000 0
02-Sep-08 Buy Steve Nicandros 68 GBX 10,000 0
11-Jul-08 Buy Steve Nicandros 94.5 GBX 60,000 0
09-Jul-08 Buy Steve Nicandros 93 GBX 40,000 0
23-Oct-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 1.98 CAD 10,000 0
15-Oct-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 78 GBX 10,000 0
28-Sep-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 75 GBX 25,000 0
28-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 82 GBX 25,000 0
20-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 83 GBX 25,000 0
18-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 81 GBX 40,000 0
15-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 78.5 GBX 10,000 0
12-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 78.9 GBX 50,000 0
06-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 81 GBX 25,000 0
05-Jun-07 Buy Steve Nicandros 81 GBX 25,000 0
06-Oct-06 Buy Steve Nicandros 60 GBX 25,000 0
25-Sep-06 Buy Steve Nicandros 77 GBX 50,000 0
21-Sep-06 Buy Steve Nicandros 50 GBX 100,000 0
03-May-06 Buy Steve Nicandros 124 GBX 50,000 0
10-Jan-06 options Steve Nicandros 0.03 USD 1,859,585 0
10-Jan-06 options Steve Nicandros 1 USD 50,000 0

Just a reminder of the shares held by ZM and SN. Also, remember that they converted LN's at 10x the share price.

Zaza Mamulaishvilli Shareholding
Trade Date Action Notifier Price Currency Amount Holding
08-May-18 Buy Zaza Mamulaishvilli 0.48 GBX 10,000,000 1,040,259,226
08-May-18 Buy Zaza Mamulaishvilli 0.49 GBX 16,000,000 1,040,259,226
04-Oct-17 Buy Zaza Mamulaishvili 0.58 GBX 172,413,793 1014259226
25-Aug-17 Placing Zaza Mamulaishvili 0.1 GBX 216,203,088 841,845,433
27-Jul-15 Buy Zaza Mamulaishvili 0.8 GBX 11,079,417 82532443
18-Jun-15 Notification of Holding Zaza Mamulaishvili 0 0 71453026

IMHO the reference to 'privileged' information in the DECLARATION OF WILLIAM DECLERCQ, implies that until the Discovery provides evidence to back what FRR already know, should it be granted, then the information cannot be disclosed. The definition when used in law (copied from the link below) gives a possible reason for withholding information.

Law. (of utterances or communications)
not rendering the person making them liable to prosecution for libel or slander, in view of the attendant circumstances.
not requiring any testimony concerning them to be presented in court.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/privileged

For obvious reasons I have my own thoughts on this information, which will remain my thoughts, until more information filters through from the court papers. However, IMHO FRR will succeed in the court case against SH/O in California or another jurisdiction (depends upon the granting of discovery IMHO).