Member Info for Madpunter

The following 10 posts wereposted by Taffy52 starting with the post @ 14:31 today :-

RE: Texas litigation
COMES NOW, Plaintiff Outrider Master Fund, L.P. (“Outrider” or “Plaintiff”) and files this Original Complaint against Steve C. Nicandros ("Nicandros") and Zaza Mamulaishvili ("Mamulaishvili"; with Nicandros, the “Guarantors” or “Defendants”), and respectfully states as follows: 1. I. PARTIES Plaintiff Outrider Master Fund, L.P. is a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership. 2. Defendant Steve C. Nicandros is an individual resident of Houston, Texas, who may be served with service of process at his residence located at 414 Pineneedle Dr., Houston, Texas 77024-6604, or wherever else he may be found. 3. Defendant Zaza Mamulaishvili is an individual resident of the country of Georgia. Although he resides in Georgia, Mamulaishvili has extensive contacts and connections with Harris County, Texas. The country of Georgia is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents, Inter-American Convention on Letters

Posted by Chris572 @ 09:31 :-

and to top it all off we lost Ukraine Bid
The company of ex-State Duma deputy won the competition for the development of the site "Dolphin"
The company Trident Black Sea has been recognized the winner of the competition for the development on the basis of the production-sharing agreement for the hydrocarbon section Dolphin on the Black Sea shelf, said the head of the company, a former deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation, Ilya Ponomarev.
The company of ex-State Duma deputy won the competition for the development of the site "Dolphin"
About this Ponomarev wrote on Facebook, reports Business Censor.
"It was a difficult struggle, but our application was significantly more profitable for Ukraine," he said.
According to Nefterynok, 6 members of the commission voted "in favor" of the Trident Black Sea in the competition, 2 abstained (in particular deputy Katser-Buchkovskaya and a representative of the Ministry of Economic Development).

20.Professional Conduct
All attorneys of record for the parties have reviewed the Guidelines for
Professional Conduct for the Northern District of California.
21.Other
Not applicable.
DATED: July 24, 2019 TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP
/s/ William DeClercq
William DeClercq
MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C.
/s/ Ross H. Parker*
Ross H. Parker
COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP
/s/ Gregg M. Ficks*
Gregg M. Ficks
* electronic signature authorized on July 25, 2019.
Case 3:19-cv-01996-RS Document 54 Filed 07/25/19 Page 11 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -12-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
4810-5805-3789v.4
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The above JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED
ORDER is approved as the Case Management Order for the case and all parties
shall comply with its provisions. [In addition, the Court makes the further orders
stated below:]
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:____________
U

17.Scheduling
ADR. The parties are presently unable to agree on a proposed date to
complete an initial ADR session. Plaintiffs propose completing an initial session of
ADR not later than November 15, 2019, with an ADR completion date of May 15,
2020. Defendants are not prepared to engage in any form of ADR at this time.
Expert Designation: March 2, 2020
Fact discovery cut-off: March 31, 2020
Expert discovery cut-off: May 15, 2020
Motion cut-off: June 30, 2020
Trial Date: July 27, 2020
Final Status Conference: July 6, 2020
18.Trial
The parties anticipate a two-week jury trial.
19.Disclosure of Non-party Interested Entities or Persons
Case 3:19-cv-01996-RS Document 54 Filed 07/25/19 Page 10 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -11-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
4810-5805-3789v.4
Each party has filed the “Certification of Interested Entities or Persons”
required by Civil Local Rule 3-15.
Plaintiffs restate and certify that other than the named parties, Plaintiffs are
unaware of any entity or person, other than the parties to this action, with (i) a
financial interest (of any kind) in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to
the proceeding or (ii) any other kind of interest that could be substantially affected
by the outcome of the proceeding.
20.Pr

13.Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes
The parties do not consent to a magistrate judge.
14.Other References
This case is not amenable to a reference.
Case 3:19-cv-01996-RS Document 54 Filed 07/25/19 Page 9 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -10-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
4810-5805-3789v.4
15.Narrowing of Issues
The parties agree that Mr. Hope owed a fiduciary duty as a result of his role
on the Board of Directors of FRC from 2016 through at least the date he resigned,
May 6, 2019. The parties do not agree, however, on the scope of any such duty or
the applicable law from which such duty is derived.
The parties are not aware of any other issues that can be narrowed at this
time.
16.Expedited Trial Procedure
This case is not amenable to expedited trial procedures.
17.Scheduling
ADR. The parties are presently unable to agree on a proposed date to
complete an initial ADR session. Plaintiffs propose completing an initial session of
ADR not later than November 15, 2019, with an ADR completion date of May 15,
2020.

(iv) punitive damages based upon the intentional misconduct of Defendants,
in the amount approximately 10 percent of Defendants’ net worth;
(v) costs of suit;
(vi)reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses; and,
(vii) such other relief as the Court may deem proper.
Case 3:19-cv-01996-RS Document 54 Filed 07/25/19 Page 8 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -9-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
4810-5805-3789v.4
12.Settlement and ADR
At present, Plaintiffs are willing to enter into informal settlement
negotiations pertaining to their claims in this action as well as a global resolution
of all disputes between and among Plaintiffs (and their affiliates and subsidiaries)
and Defendants (and their affiliates and subsidiaries). Plaintiffs believe that an
early settlement process may assist the parties in avoiding unnecessary expense in
this litigation. Plaintiffs believe that written discovery and deposition of Mr. Hope
will disclose key facts exposing Mr. Hope’s alleged breaches of duty, conflicts of
interest, and misrepresentation, which would likely impact the parties’ relative
settlement positions. Plaintiffs believe that the parties are required to participate in
ADR in good faith, and will be ready, willing, and able to participate in ADR, in
good faith, whenever Defendants are also ready, willing, and able to participate in
ADR, in good faith.
Defendants assert that, based on numerous failed settlement efforts in the
past, Defendants’ inability to gather basic operational and financial data from
Plaintiffs, and distrust/acrimony between the parties, including with respect to the
Cayman Islands Action, formal dispute resolution would not be productive and
would only delay final resolution of this case. Accordingly, Defendants are
presently opposed to ADR, but are aware of the Court’s local rules on the subject
and will participate in good faith ADR as may be ordered by the Court.
13.Consent to Magistrate Judge for All Purposes
The parties do not consent to a magi

10.Related Cases
Plaintiffs previously pursued an action in the Cayman Islands (the “Cayman
Islands Action”) against Mr. Hope and Outrider Master Fund, L.P. (collectively,
the “Cayman Defendants”), and others. On April 12, 2019, Plaintiffs voluntarily
“discontinued” the action (the Cayman Islands equivalent of dismissing without
prejudice). On April 15, 2019, the Court in the Cayman Islands Action executed
Case 3:19-cv-01996-RS Document 54 Filed 07/25/19 Page 7 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -8-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
4810-5805-3789v.4
the “Consent Order,” which discontinued the action without prejudice. The parties
agree that the Cayman Islands Action is concluded. Defendants assert that there
will be no unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting
results relating to the Cayman Islands Action.
On July 23, 2019, Outrider Master Fund, LP, in its capacity as lender, filed
suit against guarantors Steve Nicandros and Zaza Mamulaishvili in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Case No. Case No. 4:19-
cv-02714. Prior to filing the action, Outrider Master Fund, LP requested, by and
through defendants’ undersigned counsel, that Messrs. Nicandros and
Mamulaishvili submit to the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California.
As of July 25, 2019, Outrider Master Fund, LP has not received a response
to its request.
11.Relief
Plaintiffs seek the following relief:
(i) Injunctive relief;
(ii) damages in an amount according to proof, but not less than $75,000,
based upon the losses flowing from the breaches of duty and
interference by Mr. Hope, which include lost business opportunities
to plaintiffs, loss of going concern value, and additional losses which
will be established in part through expert testimony;
(iii)pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the legal rate;
(iv) punitive damages based upon the intentional misconduct of Defendants,
in the amount approximately 10 percent

7. Disclosures
The parties anticipate there will be full and timely compliance with the
initial disclosure requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
8. Discovery
There has been no discovery taken to date, other than the parties’ exchange
of initial disclosures.
Case 3:19-cv-01996-RS Document 54 Filed 07/25/19 Page 6 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -7-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
4810-5805-3789v.4
The scope of anticipated discovery will extend to the matters alleged in the
First Amended Verified Complaint and related defenses, as well as affirmative
defenses, asserted in Defendants’ Answer, and any matter reasonably related
thereto or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
The parties have not proposed limitations or modifications of the discovery
rules.
The parties have discussed and considered entering into a stipulated ediscovery order, but at this point in time have not agreed on the terms of such a
potential order.
The proposed discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) is as follows:
(a) following initial disclosures, the parties will mutually engage in written and
document discovery; (b) following initial exchanges of documents the parties will
meet and confer to determine what, if any, e-discovery may be required; (c) upon
completion of written, document, and e-discovery, the parties will conduct
depositions, commencing in early 2020; (d) fact discovery will cut-off on March
31, 2020; (e) expert discovery to be completed by May 15, 2020.
There are no identified discovery disputes at present.
9. Class Action
Not applicable.
10.Related Cases
Plaintiffs previously pursued an action in the Cayman Islands (the “Cayman
Islands Action”) against Mr. Hope and Outrider Master Fund, L.P. (collectively,
the “Cayman Defendants”)

the Plaintiffs’ asserted applicability of California law.
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:19-cv-01996-RS Document 54 Filed 07/25/19 Page 5 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -6-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
4810-5805-3789v.4
4. Motions
Plaintiffs have previously brought their (a) request for temporary restraining
order; (b) motion for expedited discovery; and (c) motion for preliminary
injunction. These motions were denied. There are no motions pending as of this
filing.
Both Plaintiffs and Defendants anticipate that they will bring dispositive
motions, or at a minimum, partially dispositive motions.
5. Amendment of Pleadings
The parties do not anticipate amendment of pleadings but reserve the right to
do so. The parties propose a deadline of May 31, 2020, for any amendment of
pleadings that might be necessary based on later-discovered facts.
6. Evidence Preservation
The parties certify they have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the
Discovery of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI Guidelines”), and confirm
that the parties have met and conferred pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) regarding
reasonable and proportionate steps to preserve evidence relevant to the issues
reasonably evident in this action.
7. Disclosures
The parties anticipate there will be full and timely

other obligations of the Plaintiffs or their stakeholders. Plaintiffs allege that, if
these statements were not knowingly false, they were at a minimum an “assertion,
as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for
believing it to be true” and made “with intent to induce Plaintiffs to alter [their]
position to [their] injury or [their] risk.” (B.L.M. v. Sabo & Deitsch (1997) 55
Cal.App.4th 823, 834 [64 Cal.Rptr.2d 335], internal citations omitted.) As a result
of Plaintiffs’ reliance on the false statements by Defendants, Plaintiffs allege they
were harmed.
Civil Conspiracy. Plaintiffs allege that Outrider and Outrider Onshore (the
“Outrider Entities”) were, at all times, aware that Mr. Hope planned to take the
above-described wrongful acts. Plaintiffs further allege that the Outrider Entities
agreed with Mr. Hope’s plans and intended that these wrongful acts be committed.
As a result of this alleged conspiracy between the Outrider Entities and Mr. Hope,
Plaintiffs contend that the Outrider Entities are liable, jointly and severally, for
each of the torts committed by Mr. Hope.
Defendants have filed their answer and deny all, or substantially all, of the
allegations which comprise each of Plaintiffs’ causes of action. Moreover,
Defendants do not concede that California law applies to the Plaintiffs’ claims,
which are premised on Mr. Hope serving as a director for FRC, an entity formed
under Cayman Islands law, and a lending relationship between non-party Outrider
Master Fund, LP and Frontera International Corporation, both of which are entities
formed under Cayman Islands law. Defendants assert that it is the Plaintiffs’
burden to adduce evidence in support of its claims and to request that the court
apply the correct jurisdiction’s law. Defendants’ reserve their right to challeng

knows that another’s conduct constitutes a breach of duty and substantially assists
or encourages the breach.” Neilson v. Union Bank of California, N.A., 290 F. Supp.
2d 1101, 1133 (C.D. Cal. 2003).
Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. Plaintiffs
assert the applicable elements of an intentional interference claim are “(1) an
economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the
probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s
knowledge of the relationship; (3) intentional acts on the part of the defendant
designed to disrupt the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and
(5) economic harm to the plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the
defendant.” Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 29 Cal. 4th 1134, 1153
(2003) (citation omitted). As detailed in the Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs allege
that Mr. Hope has taken intentional actions to disrupt Plaintiffs’ economic
relationships and has harmed, and continues to harm, Plaintiffs by intentionally
thwarting efforts to obtain funding to pay the interest due to OMF and continue
funding FRC’s operations.
Negligent and Intentional Misrepresentation. To allege fraud under
California law, which Plaintiffs allege applies here, Plaintiffs must prove: “(1) a
knowingly false representation by the defendant; (2) an intent to deceive or induce
reliance; (3) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff; and (4) resulting damages.”
(Service by Medallion, Inc. v. Clorox Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1807.) Plaintiffs
allege Defendants made intentionally false representations to Plaintiffs, including
without limitation, specific representations, both orally and in writing, in
connection with Mr. Hope’s gaining a seat on FRC’s Board of Directors,
misrepresenting the nature of Mr. Hope’s anticipated role on the Board of
Directors. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Hope’s true intentions in gaining a seat on the
Board of Directors was to protect the collateral of OMF without any regard to

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -3-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
4810-5805-3789v.4
(“Maples”), the collateral agent, to foreclose upon plaintiffs’ property and liquidate
all issued and outstanding shares of a subsidiary of FRC, Frontera Resources
Caucasus Corporation, a Cayman Islands Corporation (“FRCC”). Plaintiffs allege
that Mr. Hope, with the assistance of the Outrider entities, directed this activity to
benefit himself and deliberately disregarded the interests of the plaintiffs and their
stakeholders, and irreparably harm Plaintiffs.
Defendants deny Plaintiffs’ allegations and assert numerous affirmative
defenses.
3. Legal Issues
Breach of Fiduciary Duty. To establish a claim for breach of fiduciary duty,
under California law, which Plaintiffs assert applies here, Plaintiffs must show the
existence of a fiduciary relationship, its breach, and damage proximately caused by
the breach. Tribeca Cos., LLC v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 239 Cal. App. 4th 1088,
1114, 192 Cal. Rptr. 3d 354 (2015). Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Hope, who as a
Board member, was indisputably in a fiduciary relationship with at least Plaintiff
FRC, elected to protect his personal investment in the debt of Plaintiffs without
concern for Plaintiffs, the other creditors of Plaintiffs, or those who benefit from
Plaintiffs’ business activities.
Aiding and Abetting Breaches of Fiduciary Duty. Under California law,
which Plaintiffs assert applies here, Plaintiffs allege that the Outrider Defendants,
which are controlled by Hope, may also be liable for aiding and abetting his
breaches of fiduciary duty. An aider and abettor may be liable where it makes a
“conscious decision” to participate in activity he or she knows is tortious, “for the
purpose of assisting another in performing a wrongful act.” American Master
Lease, LLC v. Idanta Partners, Ltd., 225 Cal. App. 4th 1451, 1475-76, 171 Cal.
Rptr. 3d 548 (2014). Accordingly, liability is properly imposed “on one who

]
ORDER
Case 3:19-cv-01996-RS Document 54 Filed 07/25/19 Page 1 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 -2-
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & [PROPOSED] ORDER
4810-5805-3789v.4
The parties to the above-entitled action jointly submit this JOINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT & PROPOSED ORDER pursuant to the
Standing Order for All Judges of the Northern District of California and Civil
Local Rule 16-9.
1. Jurisdiction & Service
This court has original jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 USC §
1332 in that it is a civil action between citizens of different states in which the
matter in controversy exceeds, exclusive of costs and interest, seventy-five
thousand dollars ($75,000). All parties have been served and have appeared.
2. Facts
In 2016, Stephen Hope obtained a seat on the Board of Directors of plaintiff
Frontera Resources Corporation (“FRC”), in 2016. Plaintiffs allege that, despite
representations to the contrary to Plaintiffs and their representatives, Defendants’
goal in demanding a seat on FRC’s Board of Directors was for Mr. Hope to take
whatever actions might benefit Defendants and their investors, to the detriment of
Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege Mr. Hope, with the assistance of the Outrider entities,
acted to keep Plaintiffs in economic distress, to interfere with Plaintiffs’ ongoing
operations, and diminish Plaintiffs’ value as a going concern, because Defendants
stand to profit from Plaintiffs’ financial distress and disadvantage. Specifically,
Plaintiffs allege Mr. Hope used his position to block various financing transactions
in order to maximize the benefit to himself as a secured creditor. Plaintiffs further
allege that Defendants purposefully took steps to cause FRC to be delisted from the
AIM Market of the London Stock Exchange with the goal of eliminating public
capital markets as a potential source for FRC’s operations.
Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Hope, with the assistance of the Outrider entities,
and while a member of the Board of Directors, directed MaplesFS Limited
Case 3:19-cv-01996-RS Document

William DeClercq, Esq. SBN 240538
TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP
445 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (626) 408-2150
Facsimile: (415) 851-8868
E-Mail: wdeclercq@taylorenglish.com
John Mills, Esq. SBN 149861
Eric S. Fisher, Esq. SBN 240545
TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP
1600 Parkwood Circle SE, Suite 200
Atlanta, Georgia 30339
Telephone: (770) 434-6868
Facsimile: (770) 434-7376
E-Mail: jmills@taylorenglish.com E-Mail: efisher@taylorenglish.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Frontera Resources Corporation
and Frontera International Corporation
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FRONTERA RESOURCES
CORPORATION AND FRONTERA
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
STEPHEN HOPE, OUTRIDER
MANAGEMENT, LLC, AND
OUTRIDER ONSHORE, LP
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 3:19-cv-01996-RS
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT & [PROPOSED]
ORDE

The following 12 posts were posted by Earsbern starting @ 00:41 today.

Posted by Madpunter @ 16:08 :-

Possible reasons for Mourant Writ
1) FRR have no money.

Unlikely, as the court case is still proceeding as far as we know in California and FRR has recently submitted a bid for the Dolphin Licence in the Ukraine. Also, the writ is against ZM and SN, who should have enough money to pay, based upon the offer of the $5m loan.

2) The legal agreement with Mourant for fees may have been with FRCC, which is now in the hands of the liquidators and only has the 5% royalty. This may explain why the writ is against ZM and SN.

3) FRR may be in dispute with Mourant as suggested by ScottPalmer250 in his post @ 11:41, part of which is copied below :-

If this great ruse to expel Hope from the Board, stop liquidation and get control of the company by not paying the $2 million owed to Hope was engineered by the lawyers and they lost would you pay them?

We know that 'Discovery' evidence was not submitted in the Cayman's as reminded by ZiggyZag's post @ 12:02, part of which is copied below :-
Rediscovered below from our council in Taffs posting of court docs 31st May ....

Defendants again attempt to focus this Court’s attention on dicta and interim rulings in the Cayman Islands Action. No discovery was ever conducted in the Cayman Islands Action, and few documents beyond affidavits were submitted to the court in that action. ......

What if discovery proves the case against SH/O, but opens up the possibility of Criminal Proceedings in the US by the SEC? Could this have resulted in a stay and a lengthy delay, time which FRR doesn't have, if SH/O's lawyers had objected? The extract (copied below) from the link copied below, would seem to indicate the possibility.

However, a court may stay a civil proceeding if a defendant would be unjustly prejudiced by providing information in said proceeding that may incriminate him or her in future or current criminal proceedings.

https://www.lexology.com/gtdt/tool/workareas/report/asset-recovery/chapter/cayman-islands

I'm not a lawyer and we don't have all the facts, but the possibility of a stay might explain the absence of the 'Discovery' in the Cayman's and may also be linked with the non-payment.

Posted by Mills240 @ 10:19 :-

As with any corporation or LTD company Lawyers and accountants will always make a director sign a personal guarantee
to cover their fees.... We all know that Zaza and Steve have the personal funds to pay $350K
each ! So why haven't they paid it ??
1, Not happy with mourant performance ... ( If a service is below par who wants to pay for it , personally I make any of my supplies wait for the final moment I have to pay if I haven't been happy with their service)
2, You know money is about to arrive from a different source and you don't need to dip into your personal funds (Majors buyout or win in the Cali court)

DOS trumps everything , everything else is just Noise..... Dont let the doubters or shorters get in your
head stay positive ! I know people in here that have the life savings and it really doesn't help when some negative
doubter posts GAME OVER ! Without having a clue what's happened behind the scenes. Be careful what you write as you
could push someone over the edge with your unfounded comments of GAME OVER .

ATB

MILLS

PS Still positive ;)

Posted by D0ddsy @ 08:47 :-

https://www.offshorealert.com/GetDocument.aspx?id=60600

Posted by Chris572 @ 12:30 :-

NEW LOBBYING TERMINATIONS-

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld: Frontera Resources Corporation

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/politico-influence/2019/07/23/brownstein-hyatt-tops-revenue-rankings-460814

Posted by Goit @ 15:07 :-

I'm out and about, is there a score breakdown? Would be interesting to see how we comparatively scored financially against the other bidders who are perhaps more financially transparent currently to try and gauge frr situation., cheers

Posted by pophead @ 16:32 :-
Goit, here is a breakdown of the scoring criteria from doc posted earlier.

Each bid will be ranked based on the number of points as per an evaluation of each criterion:

the best work program (with a focus on the comprehensive development of the area and ensuring early production) – 80 points;

efficient utilization of natural resources according to the work program – 15 points;

attractiveness of bids as regards production sharing in favor of the State – 30 points;

the largest amount of investment – 35 points;

efficient environmental protection measures – 15 points;

level of financial security of the proposed work program – 30 points;

previous experience in exploration and production of hydrocarbons, in particular from unconventional sources – 45 points;

and utilization of goods, works and services of Ukrainian origin – 20 points