London South East | The UK's favourite investor portal.

Posted by Zeninvestor yesterday @ 08:04 :-

A day in the life of Frontera
Once again we swing from despair to hope in 24 hours as unexpected information is thrown into the mix. What I take from yesterday is that 1. The journalist from ePravda (whoever they are) had done his homework and gave Zaza a real grilling about his past, his secret backers and previous dodgy dealings in the region. It raises questions about who Frontera really are and what kind of geo-political shadowplay we have invested in. 2. Zaza is spinning facts and we know that Frontera plays fast and loose with the truth. This is PR for the company but who is the audience? Why is he giving this interview? It can only be the Ukrainians he is trying to woo this time. At least he believes there is still a company worth promoting. 3. Tim has taken FRR with him from YJ to his new PR company so he also must believe that this is a company he can promote and FRR must be paying him. Why does FRR still need a PR company in London where they are delisted ? What are they employing them to do ? Does this signal imminent news? 4. Steve N is not hiding behind his sofa but wine-tasting in Georgia ! That’s a relief. I imagined him having a nervous breakdown. 5. We haven’t the faintest idea what’s going on and we never really did. Georgian politics, regional corruption and CIA, Atlantic Council and European meddling seems to be at the heart of Steve and Zaza’s business world. Let’s hope we are collateral beneficiaries rather than collateral damage. GLA

Posted by Ivyspivey2 @ 19:14 and 19:19 :-

Wondered what meeting was about with MEPA

Levan Davitashvili met with the representatives of the US and French Delegations

The Minister of Environmental Protection and Agriculture of Georgia, Levan Davitashvili hosted the delegation of US State of Texas, representatives of the Government agencies of France and business sector.
The export potential of Georgian wine and spirits, as well as export opportunities to the US market have been discussed by sides at the meeting.
Under the frame of the meeting, the Minister highlighted a number of issues, whereby, he set focus on “Georgia – Homeland of Wine”, 8000-year-old history of Georgian wine making tradition and methods. Levan Davitashvili provided guests with the information on the activities of the National Wine Agency and acquainted them with 500 endemic varieties of Georgian vines planted in the nursery in Jigaura.
“The United States is a strategic partner and a friend for Georgia. Therefore, strengthening multilateral cooperation is a matter of importance for us. Georgia's grape harvest enters its active phase and our guests will find it particularly interesting to learn more about the grape harvest. I believe, that cooperation between Georgian producers and American companies will move to a new stage and United States will become one of the most important consumers of Georgian wine and spirit in the nearest future ” said Levan Davitashvili.
The Founder of the company "FRONTERA RESOURCES", Steve Nicandros noted, that Georgia is an important partner for the United States and has a great potential to succeed in trading.
At the meeting with the representatives of the French Distiller Producer Company ‘’Tessandier and Fils’’, the Minister of Environmental Protection and Agriculture, Levan Davitashvili set focus on the quality and export potential of Georgian wine.
The General Director of the French Distiller Producer Company ‘’Tessandier and Fils’’, Jerome Tessendier stated, that the Company ‘’Tessandier and Fils’’ plans to sign a memorandum of cooperation with the Georgian Wine and spirits production company Bolero & Company. The above mentioned agreement will last for 25-years.
The issues related to the projects implemented in Georgia to develop nut crops, livestock breeding, sustainable development of forest and protected areas were also brought forward at the meeting.
It should be noted, that the visit of the US representatives and French business circles to Georgia was organized by Georgian Wine and spirits production company Bolero & Company.
The Chairman of the National Wine Agency, Levan Mekhuzla attended the meeting held at the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture.

https://mepa.gov.ge/En/News/Details/11630

Tweeted earlier by Georgian MEPA.

Mainly a wine promotion event but Steve obviously sees opportunity’s to piggy back about US Georgia relations.
Maybe just choosing the wine for the celebration or commise

unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Nicandros at his place of abode—the Residence. As is
demonstrated by the evidence before this Honorable Court, including the affidavit of Plaintiff’s
process server, personal service of Nicandros through standard means is impractical and
substituted service should be allowed. Effecting service by posting or attaching the Summons
and Complaint at the door of Nicandros’ Residence will be reasonably effective to give Nicandros
notice of this suit. Substituted service is particularly appropriate here where the evidence clearly
demonstrates that Nicandros has likely been informed by his wife that a process server has
attempted to serve him with legal documents but he has thus far avoided personal service. See
Ex. A.
13. Plaintiff’s repeated attempts to personally serve Nicandros at his Residence have
been unsuccessful. In order to effectuate service, substituted service in accordance with Texas
Rule of Civil Procedure 106(b) is necessary. Therefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests this
Honorable Court authorize substituted service.
IV. CONCLUSION
14. For these reasons, Plaintiff Outrider Master Fund, LP respectfully requests that
this Honorable Court enter an order authorizing substituted service upon Defendant Steve C.
Nicandros in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) and Texas Rule of Civil
Procedure 106(b)(2) by posting or attaching a true and correct copy of the Summons and
Complaint to the gate or front door of 414 Pineneedle Dr., Houston, Texas 77024-6604, which is
Nicandros’ usual place of abode. Plaintiff further respectfully prays for any other and further
relief, whether at law or in equity, to which it may show itself justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
By: /s/ Natalie A. Sears
Ross H. Parker
State Bar No. 00797164
John D. Cornwell
State Bar No. 24050450
Natalie A. Sears
State Bar No. 24098400
500 N. Akard St., Suite 3800
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: (214) 855-7500
Fax: (214) 855-7584
Email: rparker@munsch.com
jcornwell@munsch.com

That's it. There are 2 further documents One is an affidavit signed by the agent reiterating her actions in attempting to deliver the documents. I cannot paste this to copy it - perhaps because it is a photocopied document? Anyway, as it simply repeats what we have already been told, you're not missing anything. The last document is mercifully brief - a proposed order, written by SH/O's attorneys, that the judge is requested to sign. I'll try and print that now, and that's the lot!

8. On August 19 and 22, 2019, Ms. Williams attempted service at the Residence, but
both gates at the driveway were closed. She noted lights were on inside the home, but she could
not access the property. See Ex. “A.”
9. Specifically, the process server attempted service at the Residence on August 12,
2019, August 15, 2019, August 17, 2019, August 19, 2019, and August 22, 2019. During the
service attempts, the process server noted that the lights were on inside the Residence, but the
gates were closed preventing access to the front door or no one would answer the door after
ringing the doorbell.
10. Despite Ms. Williams confirming that she had the correct address for Nicandros
at his Residence, service has been unsuccessful because Nicandros has not been home and/or may
be actively attempting to avoid service.
III. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
11. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff has
unsuccessfully attempted to serve Nicandros personally on six (6) separate occasions. Rule
4(e)(1) permits service on an individual “pursuant to the law of the state in which the district is
located.” FED. R. CIV. P. 4(e)(1). Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106(a) prescribes the general
method of service of process via personal delivery. TEX. R. CIV. P. 106(a)(1). Where attempts at
personal service have been ineffective, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106(b) provides that upon
motion supported by an affidavit stating the location of the defendant’s usual place of business or
usual place of abode, and specifically showing that service has been attempted under Rule
106(a)(1) but has not been successful, the court may authorize service in a manner that has been
shown will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice of the suit. TEX.R.CIV. P. 106(b);
see e.g., Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Air Ambulance by B&C Flight Mgmt., No. H-04-2220, 2006 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 36441, at *2 (S.D. Tex. June 2, 2006) (Rosenthal, J.) (quoting Nickerson v. Texas,
35 F. Supp. 2d 512, 517 (E.D. Tex. 1998) (“According to Rule 106, substituted service, or service
to one person, for example, as an agent of another, is valid as long as a court, upon motion,
authorizes it.”).
12. The purpose of substituted service is to allow a plaintiff to effect service where
proof of actual notice under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106(a) is impractical and standard
means of service have not been successful. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co. v. Costley, 868 S.W.2d
298, 298 (Tex. 1993) (per curiam). A party need only show via affidavit that attempts at personal
service under Rule 106(a) have failed. Id. at 299 n.2. Here, Plaintiff has made numerous
unsuccessful attempts to personally serve Nicandros at his place of abode—the Residence. As is
demonstrated by the evidence before this Honorable Court, including the affidavit of Plaintiff’s

OUTRIDER MASTER FUND, LP,
Plaintiff,
vs.
STEVE C. NICANDROS, and
ZAZA MAMULAISHVILI,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:19-CV-02714
MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE ON DEFENDANT STEVE C. NICANDROS
Plaintiff Outrider Master Fund, LP (“Plaintiff”) files this Motion for Substituted Service
on Defendant Steve C. Nicandros (“Nicandros”), requesting that this Honorable Court permit
Plaintiff to serve Nicandros with process in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)
and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 106(b). In support thereof, Plaintiff would respectfully show
as follows:
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff filed its Complaint in this Court, asserting a cause of
action for breach of individual guaranties signed by Nicandros and Defendant Zaza
Mamulaishvili.
2. After the Clerk issued the appropriate Summons on August 5, 2019, Plaintiff
contracted with a private process server to effect personal service upon Nicandros at his personal
residence located at 414 Pineneedle Dr., Houston, Texas 77024-6604 (“Residence”). Despite
numerous attempts to serve Nicandros at his Residence, Plaintiff’s process servers have been
unsuccessful. In total, Plaintiff has diligently attempted to serve Nicandros on six (6) separate

occasions and are now seeking substituted service by posting or attaching a true and correct copy
of the Summons and Complaint at the door of Nicandros’ Residence.
II. PRIOR ATTEMPTS TO SERVE NICANDROS
3. On August 8, 2019, Plaintiff’s process server, Nikki Williams, attempted service
at the Residence by ringing the doorbell and waiting for an answer. Ms. Williams could hear
dogs barking from inside the Residence and a woman came to the door, but would not open the
door or give her name to Ms. Williams. Ms. Williams identified herself and told the woman she
was looking for Nicandros. The woman identified herself as Nicandros’s wife, but would not
accept service on his behalf. Nicandros’s wife then walked away from the door and refused to
answer again. A true and correct copy of Ms. Williams’s Affidavit in Support of Motion for
Substitute Service is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference.
4. Subsequent to that date, Plaintiff’s process server attempted service at the
Residence on five (5) additional, separate occasions. See Ex. “A.”
5. On August 12, 2019, Ms. Williams attempted service at the Residence and noted
that both gates to the driveway were now closed, preventing any access to the property. See Ex.
“A.”
6. On August 15, 2019, Ms. Williams attempted service again at the Residence,
where both gates to the driveway were again closed, preventing all access to the Residence. Ms.
Williams noted lights were on inside the house, but could not access the front door to attempt
service. See Ex. “A.”
7. On August 17, 2019, Ms. Williams attempted service at the Residence again. She
rang the doorbell three times, but no one answered t

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Madpunter

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Madpunter

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending