Member Info for Madpunter

Posted by Oopsi yesterday @ 21:34 :-

BP strategy - good for us?

https://www.oilandgaspeople.com/news/18938/bp-says-some-of-its-oil-wont-see-the-light-of-day/

Posted by Dulwichman @ 13:52 :-

Hi Coggs and Jonny .
Off topic I know but allow a bit of grace during this quiet period of the great FRR journey.
Firstly Many thanks for you concerns and I am recovering well so far.- and I do look into the board every so often looking for a positive result about our future. In a way it very much like my condition. - at present I have a lot going on in the background health wise ALL of which is not really for public consumption but in truth it is rather boring but in simple terms I am reshaping my life a bit to get back to full health which in truth is the prognosis medically as long as I keep to their guide lines. ( I am still allowed to drink and function as near to a normal life - indeed I have recently attended a number of functions but not for this board) so my future looks bright as long as I do not have any further hic ups I just need to be careful for a while)
The above is is of little interest to others except that I view the above as good analogy to where we are with FRR. We are both still alive and as far as I know we both have a bright future unless something out of the ordinary comes our way. Yes we have both had an " episode" which has required some intervention but was certainly NOT life or death but a major incident that requires a bit of re shaping and a bit of luck all of which may not be easy ( In my case giving up the fags but in Company terms getting rid of Hope. ) There is still a bit to do which not for public consumption but the prognosis is good.
As a Company as far as I can work out the Company is still alive with something to live for and there appears to have support around us. Like the Company I am waiting for the all clear so to speak but that judgment is not coming this week or next and in the mean time I just have to keep taking the medicine which has some side effects but will be over soon just as the Company is dealing with the court cases and other matters.

I personally have been amased at the levels of support I have had ( including some on the board - Thanks) but remember that their is lot of support wanting this Company to succeed and some of that support are both experts and powerful and of course Europe wants what we have got.

I apologise for the length but it basically expresses where we are as a Company under a great deal of stress but are on the mend - just not publicly shown YET

Posted by bugsy-b @ 22:03 :-

Georgia ready to boom
worth another look at last years exhaustive study of the huge hydrocarbon potential across the whole of Georgia..
Brilliant graphics and seismic images...
http://georgiaoilandgas.ge/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/GOG-Exploration-Program-2018-2022.pdf

Posted by Madpunter @ 12:21 :-

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

Posted by Bigun2 @ 11:27 :-

HMRC quoted regulations to me which means all delisted shares out of ISA's after 30 days and into Ordinary Share account. If relist then 20k max can go back in. They would not discuss individual brokers interpretation of the regs. Discussed procedure to challenge the regs, they suggested lobbying my MP. They suggested the court route would not be an option....

....however Halifax have offered, on FRR relisting, to apply to the HMRC on my behalf to ask for all my shares to be transferred back into my ISA

Posted by Madpunter @ 18:21 and 23:40 yesterday :-

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

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

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

Posted by Ophir on ii yesterday :-

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

Posted by qed123 on ii :-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted by AJamesW @ 08:43 :-

UD2 flowed commercial gas, but with a fractured cement casing due to the poor cement job undertaken by the Soviets when the well was drilled. The original $700K investment was to provide BCF levels of Gas to Rustavi 18Kms away.
Its also interesting that GOG are building a Gas Cleaning Plant in Rustavi due for completion by the end of the Year.
Block's West Rustavi Gas and Oil field will separate Oil from gas and deliver untreated Gas to the Plant, The UD wells side tracked could do the same, untreated gas via a medium pressure pipeline.
BP are also in Rustavi to make connections to the Gas plant transfer pipelines.
DYOR - its all coming together.

IMHO now that 1 and 2 have been achieved, FRR can use the $150m loan if required. This fact means that the ability to pursue a FDP, even if this isn't implemented, will push the super majors into offering fair value, should a deal be agreed. Therefore, a deal could come at any time and the FD case against SH/O becomes a mere sideshow (something that kickmuck alluded to last year).

Posted by Devex on ii :-

Just confirms my view that there are and probably always were 3 objectives.

1 - get rid of Hope. Done.
2 - protect the asset. Done at least for now.
3 - create the space that allows the time for other things to happen (ie a chunk of this is now tactical. Time will tell

Patience is a virtue - and I have become rather virtuous. (I have no other choice anyway)

Finally, Local Rule 1-4 authorizes sanctions for failure by counsel to comply with any of the Court’s local rules.

The Cayman Islands action involved many of the same issues and requests for relief as does this case and Plaintiffs’ contention that the related action bore no material relevance to this case is laughable. Plaintiffs’ conduct constitutes a gross failure to disclose, particularly when seeking the most powerful remedy the Court can provide: injunctive relief with a request that prior notice not be provided to the Defendants. Given that the Cayman Islands court noted Plaintiffs had failed to present serious questions going to the merits, their attempt to engage this Court’s equitable powers by keeping it in the dark as to the other lawsuit as a desperate attempt to take another shot at securing an injunction is a serious abuse of the judicial process. It also serves to multiply proceedings in a case unreasonably and vexatiously.

Finally, it violates Local Rule 3-13(a) requiring notice of pendency of other actions. Plaintiffs’ counsel makes the tenuous argument that Local Rule 3-13(a) requires only disclosure of pending actions in federal or state courts and does not cover foreign court actions. The rule’s full context, however, reveals its intended spirit. Disclosure is required of any action which involves “all or a material part of the same subject matter and all or substantially all of the same parties,” such that, if necessary, the cases can be coordinated to “avoid conflicts, conserve resources and promote an efficient determination of the action.” L.R. 3-13(a), (b)(3). Such policy is served by requiring disclosure of foreign court actions and is not limited to disclosure of American ones.

The failure to disclose and the repeated failures to accept responsibility for the nondisclosure warrant sanctions. Therefore, the Court sanctions Plaintiffs and their counsel, jointly and severally, in the amount of $1,000.1

Payment shall be remitted to the Court within 30 days of this ruling. Plaintiffs and their counsel shall file a declaration attaching proof of payment no later than July 19, 2019.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 19, 2019 ______________________________________ RICHARD SEEBORG United States District Judge

Curiously, Plaintiffs attached documents from the Cayman Islands action that confirmed the action was still pending when the initial complaint was filed in this lawsuit in support of their reply brief. (See Dkt. 31-1, Nicandros Reply Decl., Ex. B.) In denying the TRO application, the Court noted it was troubling that Plaintiffs failed to disclose the existence of that pending action. (Dkt. 32.)

The matter was set for a hearing regarding whether a preliminary injunction should issue for June 6, 2019, and the parties were given leave to file supplemental briefing. (Id.)

Instead of using the supplemental briefing as a second chance to accept responsibility for their failure to disclose (particularly in light of the fact that the Court noted it had found such failure to be a cause of considerable concern), Plaintiffs chose to double down on their disclaimer.

In their motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs made the disingenuous argument that they thought the Cayman Islands action was irrelevant to this case and that if Defendants disagreed they would so inform the Court. (Dkt. 36 at 12 n.1.) Thus, in addition to their failure to disclose, Plaintiffs’ failure to take responsibility for the required disclosure exacerbated their dereliction of their duty of candor to this Court.

Plaintiffs’ third opportunity to acknowledge their duty to disclose came at the preliminary injunction hearing. Plaintiffs’ counsel was put on notice that the Court was considering whether to sanction him for his conduct and gave him a chance to explain his actions before considering the merits of the motion. Plaintiffs’ counsel once more declined to accept full responsibility, instead expanding upon his nonsensical arguments for why he thought he was under no obligation to disclose the pending Cayman Islands action when he filed the initial complaint in this case. Nonetheless, he was accorded an additional week to file an optional brief for why sanctions should not be imposed.

In his final brief, Plaintiffs’ counsel again argues that he believed disclosure of the Cayman Islands action was not necessary, this time reasoning it was a pending action in a foreign court, as opposed to a federal or state court of the United States, a response which remains both disappointing and wholly inadequate.

III. DISCUSSION The Court possesses the inherent power to dismiss an action sua sponte “to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 629-33 (1962). That authority includes “the ability to fashion an appropriate sanction for conduct which abuses the judicial process.” Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178, 1186 (2017) (quoting Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44-45 (1991)).

Additionally, the United States Code authorizes sanctions against counsel for multiplying proceedings in a case unreasonably and vexatiously. 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Finally, Local Rule 1-4 authorizes sanctions for failure

Posted by Taffy52 10:10 ;:-

I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs Frontera Resources Corporation (“FRC”) and Frontera International Corporation (“FIC”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) and their counsel, submitted a brief as to why sanctions should not issue in response to the Court’s instructions at a hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should issue. (Dkt. 46.)

Having considered their response and their explanation at the preliminary injunction hearing, sanctions are awarded against Plaintiffs and their counsel as set forth below.

II. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs filed this action on April 14, 2019. (Dkt. 1.) Shortly thereafter, on April 25, they submitted an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against Defendants Stephen Hope, Outrider Management, LLC, and Outrider Onshore, LP (collectively “Defendants”). (Dkt. 10.)

Before Defendants had been served with the complaint or otherwise received notice of the TRO application, Plaintiffs sought an order requiring that Defendants:

(1) “be enjoined from directly or indirectly violating or further violating the fiduciary duties and duty of loyalty that Mr. Hope owes to FRC, including by moving forward with any of the actions that may flow from the Enforcement Notice;” and

(2) be enjoined from directly or indirectly interfering with Plaintiffs’ prospective economic relations.” (Id. at 13.) Plaintiffs did not disclose, in either the TRO application or a separate notice, of a pending action in another court that involved a material part of the same subject matter and substantially all of the same parties as are present in this lawsuit.

It was not until Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs’ TRO application that the Court first became aware of such an action in the Cayman Islands. (Dkt. 23.) In October 2018, Plaintiffs brought suit in the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands against Hope, Outrider Master Fund, L.P. (“OMF”), and MaplesFS Limited (“Maples”) seeking an injunction restraining those parties from enforcing any rights under the Equitable Mortgage. (Dkt. 23-8, Cornwell Decl., Ex. E.)

The court granted the ex parte injunction the same day. (Id.) Subsequently, in January 2019, the court discharged the injunction based on its conclusion that Plaintiffs’ case had “no real prospect of success and/or fails to raise a serious question to be tried.” (Dkt. 23-10, Cornwell Decl., Ex. G at ¶ 47(b).) While Plaintiffs’ appeal was pending, they filed this lawsuit on April 14, apparently withdrawing from the Cayman Islands action the next day. (Dkt. 31-1, Nicandros Reply Decl., Ex. B.)

Plaintiffs were instructed to file a reply brief addressing Defendants’ arguments, which gave Plaintiffs their first chance to account for their failure to disclose the pending Cayman Islands action. (Dkt. 26.) Plaintiffs refused to acknowledge their failure, instead dismissing Defendants’ arguments about the Cayman Islands action as “red herrings.” (Dkt. 31 at 7.)

Curiously, Plaintif

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court not impose sanctions on Plaintiffs or their counsel. DATED: June 14, 2019 Respectfully submitted, TAYLOR ENGLISH DUMA LLP /s/ William DeClercq William DeClercq SBN 240538

3) None of the interim rulings in the Caymans Actions have any preclusive effect. Regardless, while the Caymans Court commented in one order about the perceived merits of certain causes of action, the same judge cautioned that he believed that “Plaintiffs’ appeal against that decision had realistic prospects of success….” (See Dkt. 23-11 ¶ 54). And, (4) Mr. Hope and the other defendant in the Caymans Action were represented only by lawyers based in the Cayman Islands, with no known presence in the United States. (Id.) Had Plaintiffs’ counsel believed Plaintiffs were required to inform the Court of the Caymans Action, they would have ensured that the requisite notification was provided. (Id., ¶ 14). Plaintiffs’ counsel believes that plaintiff complied with Rule 3-13, based on counsel’s interpretation of the Rule’s language and purpose, and did not intentionally withhold information from the Court that counsel believes could have or should have impacted the Court’s rulings. The Court may very well disagree, even strongly, with counsel’s interpretation of the rule and the obligation to disclose even information not covered by the rule, but the omission was not for any improper purpose, was not unwarranted by existing law, or extension of the law, and/or without evidentiary support. (Id., ¶ 14). Reasonable minds can differ, and Plaintiff’s counsel is of a different view than the Court, in good faith. Respectfully, neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel should be sanctioned for interpreting a Local Rule differently from the Court because there is no basis to conclude that Plaintiff’s position and conduct “are legally or factually baseless or that this is one of the rare circumstances where the extraordinary remedy of sanctions is appropriate.” See Organic Consumers Ass'n, supra, at *6.

before this Court with a Notice of Pendency of Other Action or Proceeding. (L.R. 3-13(a) (emphasis added)). Here, the Cayman Islands action was in a different country and has not been pending since April 15, 2019. During the June 6 hearing before this Court, and in its Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction, this Court was very concerned that Plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 3-13(a) by not notifying the Court of the Caymans Action in the Amended Complaint or the Motion for TRO. (See Dkt. 42, p. 5). As officers of the Court, and as a matter of common courtesy, it pains Plaintiffs’ counsel that this Court believes that they attempted to deceive the Court or Defendants. (DeClercq Decl., ¶ 2). By no means was that the intention of Plaintiffs’ counsel, and they apologize sincerely that this is the impression their filings provided. (Id., ¶ 2). Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed Rule 3-13 prior to filing the pleadings in this action and did not believe that disclosure of the Caymans Action was necessary. (Id., ¶ 13). In addition to information protected by the attorney-client privilege, Plaintiffs’ counsel considered the following: (1) The Caymans Action was dismissed without prejudice on the morning Monday, April 15. The Amended Complaint in this action was not filed until after-hours on April 24, and the Motion for TRO was not filed until the following afternoon. Therefore, the Caymans Actions had not been “pending” for nearly 10 days. (The Caymans Action was technically pending for several hours after Plaintiffs filed their original Complaint, but that version only sought monetary damages, and the Caymans Actions was dismissed a full day prior to the Court even issuing the Summonses associated with the original Complaint). (2) The Caymans Action was neither pending nor recently dismissed “in any other federal or state court.” It was an action in the Cayman Islands, which is not covered by Rule 3-13.

Dkt. 9, p. 2 (emphasis added)). The original moving papers sought emergency relief but did not request ex parte relief without notice. At 1:59 p.m. PST on April 26, 2019, a paralegal at the offices of Plaintiffs’ counsel emailed to Mr. Hope copies of: the Amended Complaint; the Motion for TRO; the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for TRO (Dkt. 10); and the Court’s Order Regarding Briefing Schedule (the “April 26th Order”) (Dkt. 15) in which the Court set May 2, 2019 as the earliest date for Defendants to have to submit documents to the Court. (DeClercq Decl., ¶ 11). In addition to Mr. Hope, this email was also sent to Mr. Cornwell, a Houston-based attorney whom Plaintiffs suspected would arrange for California counsel for Defendants. (Id.). In its Order Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 42), the Court stated that Plaintiffs “sought the issuance of temporary injunctive relief with no notice to Defendants.” (Dkt. 42, p. 5). But, as described above, Plaintiffs provided notice of the Motion for TRO to Defendants and Mr. Cornwell in the precise manner set forth in their submission to this Court. (DeClercq Decl., ¶ 12). In its April 26th Order, the Court did not instruct Plaintiffs to do otherwise, and the Court did not correct Plaintiffs for this proposed manner of notice at that time. (See Dkt. 15). Plaintiffs had no intention of seeking relief without giving defendants notice and an opportunity to be heard, did not request relief be issued without notice, and would have agreed to a stipulated briefing schedule. (DeClercq Decl., ¶ 12). B. Compliance with Local Rule 3-13 Local Rule 3-13(a) states: Notice. Whenever a party knows or learns that an action filed or removed to this district involves all or a material part of the same subject matter and all or substantially all of the same parties as another action which is pending in any other federal or state court, the party must promptly file with the Court in the action pending before this Court and serve all opposing parties in the action pending

based on the new breaches of duty that Plaintiffs believe were caused by Mr. Hope, while he was still a director. (DeClercq Decl., ¶ 9). Because the Enforcement Notice triggered a broad array of powers that Plaintiffs believe were (and possibly still are) being directed and orchestrated by Mr. Hope, and which Plaintiffs believe are destructive to the going concern value of Plaintiffs, it was incumbent on undersigned counsel to act quickly to amend the complaint and seek to protect the client from further irreparable harm, if possible. (Id.). Under the press of a client emergency, counsel must select the most salient facts and the ones that counsel believes are legally relevant and persuasive. Because the Cayman Islands action was inconclusive and involved an older set of facts, with different parties, there was no issue- or claim-preclusive effect and from counsel’s perspective, little if any reason to revisit that action. (See Id. at ¶¶ 9 & 13(3)). The omission therefore was not unwarranted. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Based on counsel’s understanding of fast-moving facts, which at that time were changing daily, Plaintiffs revised the original complaint and filed their First Amended Verified Complaint for Injunctive Relief and Damages (the “Amended Complaint”) (Dkt. 6) at 6:35 p.m. PST on April 24, 2019. (Id., ¶ 10). At that point in time, the Caymans Action had been dismissed for nine days, and was entirely concluded new facts were evolving and there was a new basis for relief. Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion for TRO”) (Dkt. 9) at 2:45 p.m. PST on April 25, 2019. On the first page of text of the Motion for TRO, Plaintiffs stated the following to this Court: Counsel for Plaintiffs intend to provide Defendants with notice of the instant Motion via personal service on Defendant Hope (who is also the registered agent for the corporate Defendants) and via email pursuant to Local Rule 65-1(b). Plaintiffs intend to personally serve Mr. Hope and/or email to him this Notice of Motion and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and the corresponding documents by the close of business on Friday, April 26, 2019.