Member Info for Madpunter

Posted by Madpunter on the 9th January :-

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.

Posted by OneDayRodney1 on the 9th January :-

The bankers are listed in the Company accounts, which is in the public domain. As soon as the liquidators will have been appointed the bank account would have been under the liquidators control.
Pwc, as auditors, will have copies of much of the other paperwork and will know all about what was going on with the business. That will be why they have been summoned.

Posted by Madpunter on the 9th January :-

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.

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

Posted by OneDayRodney1 on the 9th January :-

Madp: my reading of it is not that PwC are requesting anything other than that any papers etc are served on its lawyers and not them. They are effectively telling the court that they have representation. (Although it is written in 'legal speak' so I could have misinterpreted!)
As for the bank account, the liquidators would have had complete control of that from the moment they were appointed. That is absolutely certain.
My conclusion of this latest information is that it is further evidence of the liquidators going about their normal business; in this instance evidence of them wanting to quiz the Company's auditors PwC.

Posted by Taffy52 on the 8th January :-

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE and papers referred to in the Bankruptcy Rules all orders, notices, that the foregoing request includes not only the notices specified above, but also includes, w ithout limitation, hearing dates, applications, motions, petitions, requests, complaints, demands, replies, answers, schedules of assets and liabilities and statements of affairs, operating reports, plans of reorganization and liquidation, and disclosure statements, whether formal or informal, whether or oral and whether transmitted or conveyed by mail, written hand delivery, telephone, electronic mail otherwise , that is filed or given in connect ion with the above, or captioned cases and the proceedings therein . PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that neither this notice of appearance nor any later appearance, pleading, claim, or suit shall waive PwCUS’s prior or right (1) to have final orders in non core m atters entered only after de novo review by a United StatesDistrict Court judge; (2) to trial by jury in any proceeding so triable in this case or any case, case; (3) to have the United States District Court with controversy, or proceeding related to this draw the reference in any matter subject to mandatory or discretionary withdrawal; or (4) to Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7004 and have documents served in accordance with Federal Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, or to any other rights, claims, actions, or defenses, in law, in defenses, are expressly reserved. equity, or otherwise, all of which rights, claims, actions, and 2

Posted by Taffy52 on the 8th January :-

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Jason C. Hegt 885 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Tel: (212) 906-1200 Fax: (212) 751-4864 Attorney for PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------- In re: FRONTERA RESOURCES CAUCASUS CORP. (in Official Liquidation) Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding. : : : : : : : : : : Chapter 15 Case No. 19-13418 (MEW) --------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE OF APPEARANCE AND REQUEST FOR ECF SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Latham & Watkins LLP hereby appears in the above-captioned case on behalf of non-party PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC-US”), and, pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) 2002, 9007, and 9010(b) and section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, 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, be delivered to and served upon the person(s) listed below at the following addresses, telephone, and facsimile numbers: Jason C. Hegt Latham & Watkins LLP 885 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 Telephone: (212) 906-1200 Facsimile: (212) 751-4864 Email: jason.hegt@lw.com

Posted by Ivyspivey on the 8th January :-

New US Ambassador in Georgia

https://agenda.ge/en/news/2020/55

Posted by Oopsi on the 8th January :-

Levan
Has Levan's CV has been updated? - last time I can only recall him mentioning two arbitrations. He now references a third which is the current dispute. It confirms that the arbitration has happened.

Third case involved complex dispute between investor and host state government arising out of energy-related host government agreement, adjudicated by an ad-hoc tribunal of three arbitrators, under the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) rules, venue - Stockholm, Sweden

giac.ge/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Levan-Bakhutashvili-Esq.-MCIArb-GIAC.pdf

Posted by BezzyBushFire on the 8th January :-

Thanks Oopsi,

I recall us looking at this a few weeks / months back and I thought there were 3 cases listed before. However, it is the past tense nature of the wording which makes me think this has been updated. The wording:

"Participated as party representative, along with outside arbitration counsel, in 3 international arbitration cases."

Participated (past tense) suggests either the case has finished or his involvement has.

We're guessing again, aren't we.......?

Good Luck All,

Bezzy

Posted by Oopsi on the 8th January :-

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.

Posted by EkXoc on the 8th January :-

Old CV 2014/10
http://giac.ge/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Levan-Bakhutashvili-Esq.-MCIArb-GIAC.pdf
New Cv 2019/10
http://giac.ge/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Levan-Bakhutashvili-Esq.-MCIArb-GIAC.pdf

So arbitration concluded around Oct 2019?

Posted by regdik on the 7th January :-

Dulwich good post

BP 5 year plan includes a number of key objectives and that includes Solar expansion. Number one is increase profitability by 20% by increasing efficiency and lower cost of production. Also if you look at the projected product splits to 2040 shows a increase in renewables (solar/wind....). Good news is that Gas is also shows a significant increase too. This will help show why they are divesting in higher production cost facilities (North sea and US). Lubricants also play a big part in future growth profitability and that requires high grade low sulphur oil. BP will get around 6Billion this year on known divestments and this will be used for a variety of initiative from debt reduction to meting their second target of increasing production.
So I expect that this would include investing in new fields – Joint production sharing with SOCAR is also mentioned as a key focus. I suspect this will be expanded outside of Azerbaijan as they have a rather large bore gas pipe to fill.

Posted by WHamBoy on the 7th January :-

BP divesting
So what’s everyone’s view of BP seemingly building up a massive treasure trove of cash. Are they about to announce a big investment in Georgia perhaps? Are we about to strike gold? Or do we think it’s just a coincidence?

Posted by Contra on the 7th January :-

BP do not build up a treasure chest without having a very good reason. It is certainly for re-investment and if you study BP's stated future direction they want to build a substantial gas portfolio. This will be an enormous help while they reduce their carbon footprint. They intend to be the leading light of all their contemporaries in this.

Now let me see - where are there very very large undeveloped gas reserves?

Posted by Dulwichman on the 7th January :-

Conta Not wishing to put cold water on your view over BP putting a war chest together as in fact I agree with you especially as it looks like interest rates will remain low (if not lower) given some of the comments recently from central bankers. However this has been the style of Bob Dudley and his previous colleagues but with the new guy I expect alredy having greater influence he may have an eye on other things in terms of looking to the future/ It appears that BP's recent investment in solar energy is really paying off and is part of the future. Personally I think it a little early for BP to start really spending on solar as they have the abilty and I expect the wish to get a lot more research in that area but BP do have quite a lot of debt compared to the other super majors and some of the war chest may be used to pay down.
At the end of the day though there will still be a huge demand for gas for the foreseeable future and as you quite rightly say the gas is in the right pale and is of good quality. I still have the view that when you are as big as BP you tend to get what you want it just may not as big an investment as we want as they basically can still spend what they want as long as they can see a profit.

Posted by Contra on the 7th January :-

Dulwichman - I'm not sure you have poured any cold water on my view. I have not expressed a view on their solar efforts as they are demonstrating renewed interest in it. I say renewed as I remember the BP Solar office in Leatherhead in the nineties which faded away a little. But I think it must be the case that BD and BL with Board approval do have a strategy to put much more effort in developing a gas portfolio. In this I am sure they are all singing off the same hymn sheet.

Posted by R8pilot on the 6th January :-

USAID
USAID/Georgia launched the USAID Economic Governance Program, a five-year program to help Georgia design and implement transparent, evidence-based economic policies to improve its business and investment environment.

http://georgiatoday.ge/news/18945/USAID-Georgia-Launches-the-USAID-Economic-Governance-Program

Posted by Madpunter on the 4th January :-

Liquidation of FRCC
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.

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.

Posted by Arigarosa on the 3rd January :-

Massive layoff of Frontera employees
Happy new year, chaps.
Special hello to the prominent members of the LGBT community on this board.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=ka&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://netgazeti.ge/news/417457

Posted by bugsy-b on the 3rd January :-

Beka Natsvlishvili who wrote this report... likes to spin things a tad ...

https://factcheck.ge/en/page/persons/beka-natsvlishvili

Posted by FinnFCR on the 3rd January :-

Document 68 Cali
Joint Case Management Statement

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14933328/frontera-resources-corporation-v-hope/?filed_after=&filed_before=&entry_gte=&entry_lte=&order_by=desc

Posted by Earsbern on the 3rd January :-

Well, well, please cancel my previous post at 11.08. The mechanism of my access to Pacer documentation is a complete mystery to me - but now, of a sudden, I have access to the latest Cali. document (no. 68). It is an updated copy of Doc 54 (Case Management Document), except the dates are changed. I still can't copy anything, so will have to give the changes here :-

Expert Designation: 15/06/20
Fact discovery cut-off 14/07/20
Expert discovery cut-off: 28/08/20
Motion cut-off: 13/10/20
Final Status Conference: 19/10/20
Trial Date 09/11/20

It is anticipated that it will be a three week jury trial.

FRR still want an ADR, but Hope/OMF won't go for it (unless the judge orders them to).

Deleted posts from 1st re-posted by WHamBoy on the 2nd January :-

WhamBoy 20:07
I understand the misgivings and reluctance of many on here to accept the word of a poster (B-2-0) regarding the likely outcome of FRR's present problems. And yet many of these same people are seemingly very keen to accept every word from the sketchy press reports from Georgia, particularly the bad bits. Taken together however, the B-2-0 posts and the press reports seem to point in the same direction: namely that some kind of deal has been struck and that FRR has had to concede up to 50% of its proven reserves to the GG. This I can live with: 50% of a large amount is much better than 100% of nothing.
Does B-2-0 have some inside knowledge and wants to keep us in the loop? I don't know, but I hope he does! For my sake, I'm a good bit more optimistic today, after being a little bit down of late. I see SB on ii has posted a potential timetable for the next couple of months. Fingers crossed that it's good news for all LTHs.
As for the eventual deal, many on here will I know be very pleased just to get our stake back. I too am in that camp, but the potential for substantial gains and a hefty tax bill are keeping me warm at night. GLA

TSBS 21:47
Think b2o is speculating - he’s been doing that for years and he’s never ever been right. So if uncle sam has been looking after frr all this time, I can’t see how the georgians could take back 50%. If frr are fighting it then so will the americans. It would also appear that georgia isn’t the place to do business as contracts aren’t worth paper they are written on. Also thought arbitration was adjourned so how have decisions been taken?

Madpunter 22:28
WHamBoy - Don't forget that under the PSA the GG were getting 51% of the oil after the sunk costs were recovered. If B - 2 - 0 is correct then FRR gain 1% of the proven reserves under a 50/50 split, but only lose the Shallow fields and Basin Edge. The GG would also gain the opportunity of cash/shares upfront, rather than waiting years for the wells, gathering pipelines etc until full production. If this is what the GG wanted, then they will still get future royalties from the oil and gas transported through the pipelines. As there's decades of supply, would the extra from the Shallow fields and Basin Edge add to any buyout valuation?

WHamBoy 22:39
Cheers Madp - I'm not sure if it means 50% of the 49% that we had in the original contract, or as you suggest 50% of the profits from B12 which would mean a broadly unchanged deal (other than in both cases we would be losing the shallow fields and basin edge). Either way, I wouldn't care. Many of us have so much invested that talk of 5p, or 50p, or £3.50 per share just means astronomical gains that almost beggar belief. What I would struggle to cope with however would be a complete wipe out of FRR!

Posted by bugsy-b on the 1st January :-

Georgia oil gas law amendment 20/12/2019
Amendment to the Law of Georgia on Oil and Gas, Website, 27/12/2019 "V) last point of shipment - a point on the territory of Georgia where the ownership of raw materials or petroleum products is transferred to the consumer, or a point of receipt defined by the Law of Georgia on Energy and Water Supply, or a point where raw materials or petroleum products cross the Georgian border;"

2. In Article 3, the following subparagraph (g) shall be added:

"(G) providing third party access to the means of transport (including, where applicable, technical maintenance equipment), except for the part of the network and such equipment used directly for oil and gas operations in the area." D) the need to comply with relevant legislation, including requirements for energy mergers, and administrative procedures for obtaining the right to manufacture or develop a vehicle. (Vehicle means a pipeline)... I've read through this a few times, It's a matsne government file.. It's in Georgian so has to be translated and as always some parts get baffling when translated but looks like the Georgians are amending/adding laws to do with connecting to oil/gas export pipelines and "Energy mergers" legislation ..

https://www.matsne.gov.ge/ka/document/view/4748223?publication=0

Posted by B-2-0 on the 1st January :-

2020 here's the Cherry
B12 split, FRR Western to hold alll currently proven assets, Eastern to be returned to Gocg ( Basin edge, shallow fields). FRR Western jointly owned by FRR/GOGC, however, FRR transferred holding to investor (BP as part of deal. 2020 the alliance is initiated). Bushido B20

Posted by bugsy-b on the 1st January :-

“Bushido-the way of oil”. ;-)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2RTHAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq=bushido-the%2Bway%2Bof%2Boil&source=bl&ots=ZO9eF0VVbb&sig=ACfU3U3Khoc21pIY-_EFXGL8Q_Ri_o4gpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjO2r7o2OLmAhVBUhUIHX3PDeAQ6AEwDXoECAgQBA#v=onepage&q=bushido-the%2Bway%2Bof%2Boil&f=false

Posted by WHamBoy on the 1st January :-

For the transcript of Bugsy's excellent find regarding "Bushido - the way of oil", try this:
http://www.mafhoum.com/press2/80E15.htm
It's an old article (2002), written after the Gulf wars. Think of "Bushido" as George Bush's attempts to change the powerhouse of the world economy away from the Middle East (mainly Saudi Arabia) towards a new, more reliable partner. Initially that partner was thought to be Russia, but given Putin's subsequent actions, that partner is now definitely not Russia and and it would appear has now become Georgia. That is "Bushido".

Posted by R8pilot on the 28th December :-

http://georgiatoday.ge/news/18870/Georgia-to-Receive-92.7%25-of-Gas-from-Azerbaijan%2C-6.6%25-from-Russia-in-2020

Posted by bugsy-b on the 28th December :-

Naftogaz got $2.9 billion on Friday from Gazprom.. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/economy/russias-gazprom-pays-29b-to-ukraines-naftogaz/1685956

As you probably remember, We (Frontera) signed a m.o.u. with Naftogaz in 2015. http://www.naftogaz.com/www/3/nakweben.nsf/0/239AC9C6B8701FB9C2257E84004FD5A6?OpenDocument&year=2015&month=07&nt=News&

so, If we get $3.5 Billion of the Georgians, And JV with Naftogaz and their $2.9 Billion, We can jointly drill offshore Ukraine and find massive reserves of gas... After we've received our divi that is :-) .

Posted by Awacker on the 28th December :-

Bit confused about the bit at the end.so who paid the €15000 as we were unable to?

Posted by Madpunter on the 28th December :-

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.

Posted by Oopsi on the 28th December :-

The article certainly makes interesting reading. The first point is that arbitration proceedings are supposed to be confidential. There is enough information in the article to suggest that someone from the State has leaked this information.

I found the comment that this dispute relates to 100% of the contracted area outside the acquisition area very interesting. I don’t know what the acquisition area is but it does confirm that the dispute is about everything but that area. I would assume therefore that that area will remain in Frontera’s hands.

The other interesting point is that the arbitration hearing appears to have recently happened and the parties have been given the opportunity for final writer submissions before the arbitrators will make a final decision, probably in the first half of next year. The fact that we struggled with legal representation and appear to have disputed the hearing right until the end doesn’t bode well for a favourable outcome. That being said the article is clearly biased so who knows what the position is. There is also the separation of the issues between the legal claim and the validity of the transfer.

Posted by seisprocessor on the 28th December :-

Here's the additional snippet of info from the 'See circumstances' link that was missing from the bottom of Hoops09's post.
I thought the google translate was quite good overall, although it talks about the 84 unpaid employees working for Frontera Western Georgia. When I watched a previous Georgian TV clip of the unpaid employees demonstrating outside the US embassy, they were complaining about Frontera Eastern Georgia, which of course is under control of the liquidators.

On September 25, 2019, the Contractor Law Firm notified the Arbitration Tribunal of the termination of service to the Contractor. In this respect, the Contractor requested the adjournment of the arbitration hearings scheduled for October 1-11. Notwithstanding the reasonable suspicion of the Contractor for a manifestly dishonest attempt to delay the arbitration process and against the corporation and the Agency, the Arbitration Tribunal upheld the Contractor's claim.
? The arbitration hearings were adjourned until December 9-14, 2019. At the close of the hearing, the Contractor renewed attempts to disrupt the arbitration hearings (which also included refusal to participate in the hearings), which were not considered by the Arbitration Tribunal;
? As a result of the arbitration hearings, on 13 December 2019, in a letter sent to the parties, the Arbitration Tribunal addressed the parties, inter alia, with the proposal:
(A) expressed its position on the need and timing for the exchange of short summary submissions after the hearings; The matter will be decided by the Arbitration Tribunal.
(B) Submit claims for reimbursement of costs related to arbitration before January 31, 2020. However, the parties have been given the opportunity to respond to the request of the opposing party by 14 February 2020. "

Posted by Hoops09 on the 27th December :-

Translation of Ivypsivey's link

“The contractor responded to the corporation and agency lawsuit with its willful claim on September 14, 2018; The dates of the arbitration hearings were set for October 1-11, 2019.
The hearings would cross-examine the witnesses and experts involved in the "dispute" by the parties. According to the procedural timetable of the dispute, the arbitration hearings may have been followed by a brief summary of the parties' submissions, after which the arbitral tribunal decided. The need and timing of this procedural stage should be decided by the arbitral tribunal on the basis of the outcome of the hearing and the views of the parties to the dispute. In view of the timeframes established in the aforementioned and arbitration proceedings, it became clear that the arbitral tribunal's decision on the dispute should be expected in the first half of 2020.
On April 15, 2019, the Contractor notified the Corporation and the Agency of its rights and obligations to the Subsidiary of the Contractor.
On April 24, 2019, the Contractor notified the Arbitration Tribunal of its rights and obligations under the Contract, including the transfer of a fraudulent claim to an Affiliated Company.
The Corporation and the Agency did not declare the "transfer" validity and objected to the contractor's claim that the "transfer" did not comply with the "contract" requirements.
In view of the above, the arbitral tribunal decided on 7 June 2019 to separate the dispute over the validity of the transfer into a separate proceeding. The arbitration proceeding was divided into two independent lines - one dealing with the corporate and agency claims, and the other dealing with "transfer" liability and contractual claims.
However, the arbitration hearings, scheduled for October 1-11, 2019, would be devoted to the corporate and agency lawsuit claims and the issue of "transfer" validity, and the arbitration tribunal would determine the timing of the litigation claims.
On September 1, 2019, and several times thereafter, the Contractor applied to the Arbitration Tribunal seeking suspension and / or termination of the Arbitration Proceedings on the ground that it had allegedly reached an agreement with the Government of Georgia to settle the dispute. Contractor's claims were not satisfied by the Arbitration Tribunal;
The Contractor refused to pay the additional deposit on the order of the Arbitration Tribunal dated June 25, 2019, and accordingly the Corporation, in agreement with its Partner, paid a "Deposit" [EUR 150,000] instead of the Contractor.

Posted by Madpunter on the 27th December :-

Propaganda
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.

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/