Member Info for Madpunter

post 3

While the parties were meeting and conferring on this topic, Defendants agreed to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to written and document discovery requests from October 28, 2019 through November 18, 2019. On October 24, 2019, Defendants informed Plaintiffs: “Defendants will stipulate to a Voluntary Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice. If Plaintiffs file a Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice, Defendants will oppose it and request that the court dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and award Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending this litigation.” (emphasis original) On October 28, 2019, undersigned counsel informed counsel for Defendants, “Plaintiffs do not accept your clients’ demand that a stipulation to dismiss would be with prejudice or risk a motion for fees and costs.” (emphasis original) Undersigned counsel informed Plaintiffs of the need to withdraw as counsel, in light of the inability to dismiss the case without prejudice. Plaintiffs did not object. Plaintiffs have not yet secured replacement counsel. Counsel advised Defendants that Plaintiff’s counsel would be filing a motion to be relieved as counsel. In connection therewith, undersigned counsel requested confirmation: (1) that the motion will be unopposed and (2) that Defendants would extend the due date on plaintiff’s responses to discovery sufficiently to permit plaintiffs to hire new counsel to assist with their responses.” Counsel for both sides arranged a telephone call on October 30, 2019. In the call, counsel for Defendants indicated that they would not oppose a motion to withdraw, that they would ask the Court for a status conference hearing to address upcoming dates and deadlines. Defendants and Plaintiff do not oppose this Motion.

Post 2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs do not wish to continue prosecuting this case at this time and sought to discontinue the action. Defendants would not agree to a potential dismissal of this case without prejudice and stated that a motion to dismiss without prejudice would be met with opposition and a request for attorney’s fees and costs. Plaintiffs’ counsel cannot continue to represent Plaintiffs at this time for reasons that are privileged and confidential. Plaintiffs and Defendants cannot agree on the terms of a voluntary dismissal. For that reason, this Motion is necessary to relieve current counsel from the obligation to continue representing Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not oppose the relief requested by their attorneys. Plaintfifs have been informed of this motion in advance and will be provided a copy of the moving papers. Undersigned counsel respectfully submit that there will be no undue prejudice to Plaintiffs, and respectfully request that all counsel of record be relieved. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Undersigned counsel and Plaintiffs have been in discussions for several months concerning the terms of ongoing representation and seeking a resolution to certain disputes relating to the attorney-client relationship between Plaintiffs and undersigned counsel. Counsel is not at liberty to disclose the substance of the privileged discussions with its clients, except in an in camera hearing with the Court, but one result of those discussions was a decision by Plaintiffs to discontinue this action by dismissing the case without prejudice. On October 11, 2019, at the direction of Plaintiffs, undersigned counsel contacted counsel for Defendants to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs’ request to discontinue this action by stipulating to a dismissal without prejudice.

Posted by Earsbern on the 5th November :-

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD: Please take notice that on December 5, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Richard Seeborg, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, Phillip Burton Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 movants, WILLIAM B. DECLERCQ, ERIC S. FISHER, JOHN MILLS and TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP, current counsel for Plaintiffs Frontera Resources Corporation (“FRC”) and Frontera International Corporation (“FIC”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) will and hereby do move to withdraw and seek an order relieving them as counsel for Plaintiffs, pursuant to Local Rules 5-1(c)(2)(C) and 11-5. The full reasons for the motion cannot be disclosed without violating attorney-client privilege, but have been discussed over some months. Undersigned counsel is prepared to inform the Court in camera of the privileged reasons that it is necessary for counsel to withdraw, should that become necessary. Plaintiffs are not opposed to the motion by current counsel and will not be prejudiced by the Motion. Counsel has served this Motion to Plaintiffs immediately after filing it. This Motion follows a series of conferences of counsel, pursuant to Local Rule both in writing and telephonically, which occurred October 11, 24, 29, and 30 regarding Plaintiffs’ request to voluntarily dismiss this case without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and then this motion. Defendants Stephen Hope, Outrider Management, LLC, and Outrider Onshore, LP (collectively, “Defendants”) do not oppose this motion, but Defendants request the Court set a status conference to discuss the implications of a withdrawal by current counsel for Plaintiffs.
To support the Motion, Plaintiffs submit the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of William B. DeClercq and a Proposed Order, and they will rely upon the other pleadings and briefs filed in this action, the proceedings at oral argument, and any other matter that the Court deems appropriate. DATED: November 4, 2019 Respectfully submitted, TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP /s/ William DeClercq William DeClercq SBN 240538

Posted by StarRage on the 5th November :-
Thanks seisprocessor, must have missed that on the download!

Posted by Zibrahimovic on the 5th November :-
SR does love jumping the gun. For someone who comes across as an intelligent form he always fails to do the basic research. I mean its plain as day on his first post on this matter. Motion hearing set for 19/12/2019.

Posted by pophead on the 5th November :-
Zib it’s pure excitement that leads to these lapses in what is an otherwise rational approach to seeking out the truth. As long as the truth is bad new for all LTHs LMHAO.

Posted by seisprocessor on the 5th November :-
Here's the document that was signed 4th Nov that came attached with the motion....
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM B. DECLERCQ
1. My name is William DeClercq. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and competent to give this Declaration. I am one of Plaintiffs’ counsel of record in this action and have personal knowledge of all matters set forth herein. This Declaration is given for use in connection with this motion to be relieved as counsel.
2. Plaintiffs have been in discussions for several months with my firm concerning the terms of ongoing representation and seeking a resolution to certain disputes relating to the attorney-client relationship between Plaintiffs and the firm. I believe that I am not at liberty to disclose the substance of the privileged discussions with its clients, but I am willing to discuss the matter in general terms with the Court at an in camera hearing should the Court so require.
3. One result of those discussions was a decision by Plaintiffs to discontinue this action by dismissing the case without prejudice.
4. On October 11, 2019, at the direction of Plaintiffs, I contacted counsel for Defendants to meet and confer regarding Plaintiffs’ request to discontinue this action by stipulating to a dismissal without prejudice. While the parties were meeting and conferring on this topic, Defendants agreed to extend the deadline for Plaintiffs to respond to written and document discovery requests from October 28, 2019 through November 18, 2019.
5. On October 24, 2019, Defendants informed Plaintiffs: “Defendants will stipulate to a Voluntary Motion to Dismiss With Prejudice. If Plaintiffs file a Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss Without Prejudice, Defendants will oppose it and request that the court dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice and award Defendants’ attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defending this litigation.” (emphasis original)
6. Plaintiffs did not agree to dismiss with prejudice.
7. On October 28, 2019, I informed counsel for Defendants, “Plaintiffs do not accept your clients’ demand that a stipulation to dismiss would be with prejudice or risk a motion for fees and costs.”
8. I informed Plaintiffs of the need to withdraw as counsel, in light of the inability to dismiss the case without prejudice. Plaintiffs did not object. Plaintiffs have not yet secured replacement counsel.
9. I advised Defendants that we would be filing a motion to be relieved as counsel. In connection therewith, I requested confirmation: (1) that the motion will be unopposed and (2) that Defendants would extend the due date on plaintiff’s responses to discovery sufficiently to permit plaintiffs to hire new counsel to assist with their responses.
10. We arranged a telephone call on October 30, 2019. In the call, counsel for Defendants indicated that they would not oppose a motion to withdraw, that they would ask the Court for a status conference hearing to address upcoming dates and deadlines

Posted by StarRage on the 5th November :-
Motion to withdraw
MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP, William B. DeClercq, Eric S. Fisher, John Mills filed by Frontera International Corporation, Frontera Resources Corporation. Motion Hearing set for 12/19/2019 01:30 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor before Judge Richard Seeborg. Responses due by 11/18/2019. Replies due by 11/25/2019.(DeClercq, William)
https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/27832327/Frontera_Resources_Corporation_et_al_v_Hope_et_al
https://1drv.ms/b/s!Ak7gVwQ3mttlmDqZKO94PEY9I12W?e=eTMsWv

Posted by bugsy-b on the 4th November :-
Mol energy group
"Hungarian energy group MOL has acquired a 9.57 per cent stake in Azerbaijan’s Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli (ACG) oil field and 8.9 per cent in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline for a total of 1.57 billion US dollars"

"This Azeri asset will add around 20,000 net barrels per day to MOL’s production"...

I wonder how many BOPD block 12 would yield if someone invested $1.57 Billion ?..

https://emerging-europe.com/business/mol-acquires-stakes-in-azeri-oil-fields/

Posted by Madpunter on the 5th November :-
If 5 billion barrels are recoverable, then 9.57% = 478.5m barrels.
If 6 billion barrels are recoverable , then 9.57% = 574.2m barrels.
The price of $1.57bn, or $1570m equates to $(1570/478.2)/bbl = $3.28/bbl for the former.
The price of $1.57bn, or $1570m equates to $(1570/574.2)/bbl = $2.73/bbl for the latter.
Using these prices for Block 12 where there are 19.1bn barrels of oil equivalent reserves gives a buyout price of between $52.22bn and $62.67bn. The ACG field is offshore but is producing 584kbopd, whereas Block 12 is onshore and producing less than 2,000bopd. However, the costly transportation pipelines for oil and gas are already in place in Block 12 and the production costs are much lower giving a higher profit margin for Block 12.

https://www.bp.com/en_az/caspian/operationsprojects/ACG.html

Posted by regdik on the 4th November :-

Prospecting licence is different to a production one (hence the forthcoming PSA has to conform to set of criteria). FRR have the right to search and drill in the block and invest in finding O&G and costs can be offset against future revenue prior to the GG receiving their agreed %.
So firstly it is not a production licence but the remainder (few months) of the prospecting as I have yet to see GG accepting that B12 is a commercial field. No licences can be transferred unless in full agreement of the GG as the own it and have only licenced the block (you cant sell a lease car). GG have accepted that 95% of the licence may sit under another FFC company but remember this is still subject to Arbitration. OMF lawyers will have to win the case in Georgia as the licence says any dispute must be resolved in a Georgian court of law. This will take years and the PSA date will have passed and revert to GG by default.
So any noise around what you can, can’t do is immaterial due to tight timelines and the fact that the licence now sits away from FRCC hands.
If FRR go bust or fail to conform to licence agreements the licence reverts to GG.

Only the GG wins if Hope tries for the licence so it looks like he is only after the guarantees (SN/ZaZa). If FRR fail then the DoS fails and SN/ZaZa are in for a large fine and potential prison sentence (impacts SN more than ZaZa as he is US based).
As I posted yesterday GG have enough evidence to revoke the FRR licence without arbitration so I see the arbitration as an action only to get a better deal or release of part of the block. For this to be the case the US Gov influence has been the key.
Nothing we can do except wait until we either go bust or a deal is done.

Posted by erazzel on the 3rd November :-
If the only seizure and liquidation process is related to FRCC and partly FRGC only then unfortunately Hope has an empty box and that is to this end.

Posted by Madpunter on the 3rd November :-
erazzel - FTI can only liquidate FRCC and it's subsidiaries FRGC and FEGL. Only the courts could look at the asset transfer and as the liquidation process is about recovering money for debts, if FRR has left enough that will be the end of the process. IMHO now the process is under the supervision of the courts, FTI will have to be seen to act in a manner that conserves any remaining monies and doesn't squander them chasing rainbows. Therefore, the first port of call should be gaining access to any bank accounts held by FRCC and it's subsidiaries. Therefore, I assume that they will complete the liquidation to enable access to the frozen accounts, which should complete all but the Californian court case (assuming that enough funds have been left).

Posted by ZiggyZag on the 3rd November :-
Thanks Mad
But if Georgians have agreed transfer I cannot understand why tribunal has not allowed FRUS to be main party in the arbitration .
If what you say is correct then we have the Georgians on one side and FRGC on the other in arbitration re a licence which both sides know FRGC no longer hold ...does not make sense
Its such a fundamental change so surly Georgians and FRGC would request together that tribunal recognises it , the process does allow if both sides agree , I am sure.
If we have seen no evidence that Georgians agreed to the transfer then bearing in mind the above , I doubt if they have ......otherwise the tribunal is now being conducted with a bystander holding an empty box ....
.albeit we have the full box tucked under our arm! .

Posted by Madpunter on the 3rd November :-
Ziggy - FTI are using the information provided by Akin Gump who left on the 9th June and the information dates back to April (see Para. 50 copied below from the 9th post from the bottom of P28 of the Frontera Archive). The posts in the link of P24 of the Frontera Archive show that the registration didn't complete until the 11th June and FEGL's registration didn't stop until the 18th June. Block 12 had been transferred from FRGC to FRUS, but the registration process was incomplete, which is why the Tribunal proposed FRUS join the process alongside FRGC (confirmation that FRGC no longer held Block 12, but FRUS did ). IMHO when the registration completed the Tribunal would be satisfied with the substitution of FRGC with FRUS. Furthermore, if the GG were not playing ball the registration would have stopped and Block 12 would be owned by the GG months ago. Also, the fact that FRR didn't want FRGC to remain in the arbitration where it might delay it being liquidated, backs my theory of the 5% RA returning to the GG. This also explains why IMHO the Tribunal will accept the substitution of FRGC with FRUS, as they're purpose is to try and find a compromise.

50. Less than a week prior to the voluntary liquidation, on April 24, 2019, FRGC applied
to the arbitral tribunal (the “Tribunal”) to substitute FRUS for FRGC in the Arbitration. Subsequent
to the voluntary liquidation, FRGC provided more information to the Tribunal and renewed its
substitution application. The Tribunal did not accept the substitution of FRGC, and instead proposed
that FRUS join the Arbitration. FRGC rejected the Tribunal’s proposal and purported to transfer the
Counterclaim from FRGC to FRUS. This happened one day prior to the introductory call between the
FRCC Directors and the Liquidators, and yet during that call, the FRCC Directors did not make any
mention of the Arbitration.
https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=28
https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=24

Posted by Madpunter on the 3rd November :-

Ziggy - IMHO lawyers like to feel in control and don't like it when they've just been a pawn in the game. Hence, Akin Gump told FTI that they were no longer representing FRR in the arbitration.

67. First, the Liquidators were informed on July 9, 2019 by Akin Gump that it ceased acting
for FRGC in the Arbitration a month earlier on June 9, 2019. I would have expected the FRCC
Directors or FRGC to have promptly brought such a material development to the attention of the
Liquidators. (copied from the 7th post from the bottom of P28 of the Frontera Archive link below)

My post below from the 23rd September explains why IMHO Block 12 has been transferred into FRUS and registered by GOGC.

FRUS - The registration process is complete
Now look at FEGL - The registration process has stopped. These documents are from May and June. If we were in early June FRUS would state the registration is suspended. If FRR didn't rectify the points causing the suspension within the 30 day period, which has been over for months, it would state the same as FEGL - The registration has stopped. It doesn't it, it states THE REGISTRATION PROCESS IS COMPLETE.
The posts by pyrotech @ 17:19 are just listing the additional amendments, followed by what is effectively an appendix. This explains the reasons why the amendments were required and the process involved, namely suspension with 30 days to provide the said amendments. (copied from the 10th post down of P24 of the Frontera Archive link below. Posts 4 down onwards give the information quoted in post 10)

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=28
https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=24

Posted by ZiggyZag on the 3rd November :-

DTI Court Doc’s
Re DTI’s version of developments in Arbitration , they say :

45. FRGC has disputed the Georgian Government’s claims against it and filed a
counterclaim in the amount of USD $3.5 billion as lost profits for the period of 2012 through 2027

47. Pursuant to an agreement dated April 13, 2019 (the “Farmout Agreement”), just a few
weeks before the voluntary liquidation commenced and the Liquidators were appointed as JVLs, FRGC purported to assign all rights, obligations and interests in the PSC to Frontera Resources US, LLC (“FRUS”), a Texas limited liability company that is an affiliate of FRGC (the “Assignment”).

50. Less than a week prior to the voluntary liquidation, on April 24, 2019, FRGC applied
to the arbitral tribunal (the “Tribunal”) to substitute FRUS for FRGC in the Arbitration. Subsequent
to the voluntary liquidation, FRGC provided more information to the Tribunal and renewed its
substitution application. The Tribunal did not accept the substitution of FRGC, and instead proposed that FRUS join the Arbitration. FRGC rejected the Tribunal’s proposal and purported to transfer the Counterclaim from FRGC to FRUS

So reading the above if the Doc is correct :

1. We have transferred asset to FRUS
2. Been refused request to Tribunal to replace FRGC with FRUS in the arbitration.
3. Turned down Tribunals proposal that FRUS join the proceedings .
4. “ purported to transfer Counterclaim from FRGC to FRUS” ...not sure from text if that was accepted or not

Questions above raises in my mind :
I think we saw earlier the year our men attempt to get Georgians to agree to accept FRUS as licence holder ....did they agree?
Obviously a good reasons Ia’m sure but why would we refuse to accept FRUS join in proceedings but then change counterclaim fromFR GC to FRUS.

Also DTI say cannot get info from our men so wonder where they have got the above info from ((excluding point 45) bearing in mind confidentiality of Arbitration process..

Posted by RogerA on the 3rd November :-
I would have thought that if there was a group of workers that had not been paid for this amount of time that the press would have been all over it. There are several English language news outlets in Georgia, if I have time tomorrow I will attempt to make contact and suggest that there may be a story for them. It does seem strange that there has been no reports about this matter, no workers can afford 10 months without pay whatever promises may have been made.

Posted by Zibrahimovic on the 3rd November :-
Many houses in Georgia are built bought and paid for decades ago and passed down..new family members build their own on land owned by other family members. Don't think its like it is in Britain in the 21st Century..the place is still backwards in that sense...many premises are rented too and in the last 20 years or so Georgia has very effective state benefits schemes that kick in for all kinds of socio economic events up to and including workers not being paid...in that sense they are ahead of the UK so no scare stories about repossession. If they really have gone 10 months without pay then its part at the GOGC door too. Time the government coughed up the VAT rebate eh?

Posted by regdik on the 3rd November :-
Stand back and look at this objectively
If FRR have not been paying 60+ workers for 10 months then I’m sure that nay semblance of loyalty would be out of the window. Georgia energy demand is increasing and so has the number of prospectors looking for oil and gas. So if I were looking for experience worker first port of call would be this group.
Again why would GG bother with Arbitration FRR are worse than broke and have provided the GG with the perfect undisputable evidence that the license should be revoked.
FRR are failing the FIT and PROPER criteria that is included in all licence to operate - hence HSE reporting, duty of care to environmental and all employees. I think not paying them for 10months is all the evidence GG would need. What court or arbitration review would not back GG in revoking FRR licence. So why haven’t they months ago?

More in play than is obvious to the bystander.

slean -I understand that, the point of my posts is that even the article in the Rotherham Advertiser has been deleted. When you google it the link in the previous post is shown, with the added brief synopsis. However, the link no longer works. Well, it wouldn't be right to allow an article that could damage Labour or Remain in the forthcoming election. Probably used the excuse that it could incite violence.

Rotherham police investigating 1,800 child exploitation cases
https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,rotherham-police-investigating-1800-child-exploitation-cases_33978.htm
3 days ago ... Rotherham police investigating 1,800 child exploitation cases. By Gareth ... It is part of a four-year strategy to 2022 by Rotherham Safeguarding Children's ... Man who downloaded child abuse images in Rotherham sentenced.

If you try a google search for 1800 child abuse cases rotherham it gives the following link :-
https://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/view,rotherham-police-investigating-1800-child-exploitation-cases_33978.htm
However, the link returns :-
404 - Page not found
The page you requested can no longer be found.

This might be because:

You may have typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling ensuring that it does not contain capital letters or spaces.
It is possible that the page you were looking for may have been moved, updated or deleted.

Posted by Madpunter on the 2nd November :-

Incidentally, my post about FRR wanting rid of Dolphin was posted on the same day that we knew that FRR had lost the tender process. However, we didn't know that FRR was to contest the contest until Oopsi's post on the 29th July (see the post copied below and the 9th post in the Frontera Archive link below).

Posted by Oopsi @ 16:48 :-

Ukraine contest
Ukrainian gas: Ponomarev has a rival for Dolphin - an American Zaza Mamulaishvili
2 hours ago Economy 99 1
According to " Burilki ", representatives of the American Frontera Resources businessmen Steve Nikandros and Zaza Mamulaishvili came to Kiev. This company was the initiator of the contest for "Dolphin". Frontera Resources works in Georgia and Moldova, but no major projects have yet been implemented. According to "Burilka", the company, before launching the competition, went to Igor Kononenko, who was looking at the energy sector, and lobbied it before the Minister of Energy Igor Nasalyk. I was in charge of this process, Vladimir Ignashchenko, adviser to the Minister of Energy. However, in the course of the competition, Kononeko and Nasalik arose interest in Ilya Ponomarev's company Trident Black Sea. She also won. But. Now Frontera Resources arrives in Kyiv and holds meetings at the US Embassy to help contest the contest. And in the embassy they can help - because Ponomarev does not hide his ties with Soros, and that enemy is Trump. Groisman decided to go away.
https://site.ua/andrey.kovi/21654-ukrainskiy-gaz-u-ponomareva-narisovalsya-konkurent-za-delfin---amerikanets-zaza-mamulaishvili/

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=19

Posted by Madpunter on the 2nd November :-
Zen - I think Trump is right and if you listen to the interview in the link below it explains why. Whenever the PotUS phones any foreign leader there will be a host of people listening, stenographers, translators and a myriad of others. Do you think Trump would be that stupid under those circumstances? The opposition, the Democrates want Trump out, yet two of them voted with the Republicans on this issue. Assuming Trump is right, then think about FRR's involvement with the Ukraine. FRR suggests the Dolphin tender, an area that they already had in their pocket, then FRR takes the Ukraine government to court after losing, and finally Zaza doesn't turn up to a conference in the Ukraine. Take a look at my post from the 26th July copied below (see the 5th post down in the Frontera Archive link at the bottom of the post) :-

Posted by Madpunter @ 18:57 :-

The big picture
As the world moves towards a lower carbon model, then off-shore drilling with the extra risk (think about the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico) will decline. Some projects will never come into production. The world will still need oil and gas, but the emphasis will be on gas for fuel in the transitional period. As for the oil which will still be required for non-energy uses, the emphasis will be for on-shore. With this in mind and BP waiting in the wings to sign on the dotted line, why would FRR want the Dolphin License? Furthermore, the Russian annexe of the Crimea would add to the risk of the venture becoming profitable. IMHO FRR initiated the tender process to get rid of the license, as BP were not interested in another off-shore venture. IMHO FRR is close to signing a deal with the super majors and the court cases are just as Kickmuck referred to as 'just noise'.

Posted by BezzyBushFire @ 19:11 :-

Evening MadPunter,

I'd recommend sticking your 18:57 post into the Frontera archive. We're going to look back in the not-too-distant future over these retained posts and I don't think you'll be far off the mark.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q44Mv3T62MQ&app=desktop

https://www.lse.co.uk/chat/general/commodities-and-mining/frontera-archive-41C7D130-7E51-4344-82E7-83B697F53322.html?page=19

Posted by Contra on the 2nd November :-
Yesterday morning I remarked upon an interview given on Sky by James Zirin an American lawyer who was describing how Donald Trump "weaponises", his words, against people who take legal action against him. He uses every trick in the book from changing lawyers mid-case to not paying them, changing venues and any other procedure that he can to frustrate those who are chasing him and cause their costs to balloon out of control until they give up.
I must say that ODR immediately recognised the comparison I was making to our own situation, others did not. Now that many more posts have been made on the subject the similarities are even more stark.

Posted by Jeremiah99 on the 2nd November :-
I don't suppose old Donny boy is rooting for us and advising us? ;-)

Posted by Zeninvestor on the 2nd November :-
He’s more likely to be rooting for the Russians. The impeachment move is based on Trump’s involvement in Ukrainian politics and he is now defending Russia by saying they were not interfering in US elections but have been set up by the Ukrainians. Trump is clearly under Russian influence. FRR is trying to survive in the middle of this kind of political gamesmanship (remember Steve N’s degree is in geo-politics). The fate of the company and we, the shareholders, is as much dependent on regional politics as it is on legal cases, arbitration and cash flow. We have a lot of obstacles to overcome.

Posted by Contra on the 2nd November :-
Zeninvestor - What are you on about. Trump is irrelevant to our situation except his use of many different legal machinations in order to use the system to his advantage, in that and that alone there are many similarities.

Posted by Zeninvestor on the 2nd November :-
Contra, I was replying to Jeremiah99.
Trump may personally be irrelevant to our situation but the national interests of Georgia, Russia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine and the USA, are not.

Posted by Freeatlast on the 1st November :-
Outraider loan notes
So... 1st Aug 2020.
All this fuss,liquidation...blah blah....for something that legally must be paid in exactly 9 months.
People trying to half inch our overflowing box.....really are very annoying.
Glad it's costing them a packet.
I was quietly laughing at the Jim Slade Thursday posts....
What a lot of money this is costing......who ? Who is behind SH/ Otrdr.
They're getting paid in 9 months !!!! FFS
So obvious to any court, what they're doing..... must be funded by something bigger than an individual...don't you think ?
Like a very big eastern block country, for instance.

Posted by pophead on the 1st November :-
Free you believe the Russians are funding Hopes legal expenses????? Heard it all now. While out walking the dogs I saw some mushrooms like little parasols. Have you seen any Free LMHAO. GLALH.
What a week!!!!!

Posted by Freeatlast on the 1st November :-
Ummmmm....so, like the Russians are really chuffed that U.S. are sucking up Georgia.....are they Pop ?
Really ?
You don't think they might help things along to get a foot hold in block 12 via liquidating us,and buying in through some dodgy shell co.
Like some of those companies after Dolphin.

Oh......umm.....and who was Hopeshiiit wanting to sell us to last time he tried to pull this little stunt off ?
Oh yeah....a Russian company.
You need to think out side he box mate.
I'm not a comedian.....I'm seriously in this thing, looking at every angle.

Carry on having a laugh with your doggy,...why don't you !

Posted by Zibrahimovic on the 1st November :-
Yes free Hope was trying to use funds from a Russian Bank/Oligarch a few years ago mate..

Posted by Freeatlast on the 1st November :-
Ah...that's it.
Couldn't remember exactly.
Then there was the trick where he pinched the data about B12......that took us forever to get, and cost so much.
Don't under estimate hopeful !!!

Posted by Madpunter on the 1st November :-
Plus there's the recent cyber attack on Georgia and someone working for the fund that owns GOGC was behind the Levan CV, which had him back working with FRR. Also, there was the media propaganda with the Dolphin bid, which had to be countered with a press statement and interview by Zaza.

Posted by Mills240 on the 1st November :-
liquidators dont care how long this takes as long as Hope is paying their bill ... This must real
be ******* hope off ... Going by other cases liquidators will charging anywhere between
£60- 750 per hour depending on the ranking of person working on the case... Oxus gold liquidators were charging an average hr rate of £380ph per hour!
much work they charge £150K in a year .