Member Info for Madpunter

Posted by Taffy52 @ 08:22 :-

Court order
never explain why Hope’s advocacy against the proposals they identified was improper. At base, Plaintiffs appear to argue that Hope’s disagreement with the company’s attempts to secure new loans violated his fiduciary duties and interfered with FRC’s economic relations. Yet, they fail to counter Defendants’ arguments that Hope refused to support these proposals both because they threatened OMF’s first-priority lien position in favor of a new secured creditor and would transfer assets out of reach of OMF in violation of the Note Agreement, and that the proposals were therefore not in the best interest of FRC. Indeed, when the interest on OMF’s loan was set to increase in light of events specified in the Note Agreement, Hope agreed on behalf of OMF to defer the payment of that interest for several months in 2018. This does not suggest Hope was intending to force Plaintiffs’ default. Plaintiffs do not contend Hope voted against the infusion of equity capital, new unsecured notes, loans secured by second priority liens, or additional parity-lien debt contemplated in the Collateral Agency Agreement. Instead, Plaintiffs acknowledged at oral argument that Hope never voted against anything. There is nothing in Plaintiffs’ pleadings or proffered evidence to suggest a serious question going to the merits, let alone a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Even if there were a basis for preliminary relief, significant doubts arise as to whether an injunction order would be effective. First, Plaintiffs have not brought suit against Outrider Master Fund, L.P. (“OMF”), a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership and the actual holder of the collateral at issue here. As such, it is the entity with the authority to direct the collateral agent, MaplesFS Limited (“Maples”), to begin the liquidation of FRCC. Plaintiffs wholly fail to establish that Hope (or any Defendant) is the mastermind of Plaintiff’s alleged harm such that enjoining him would necessarily prevent OMF or Maples from carrying on with the liquidation. Plaintiffs do not show that Defendants are the ones who can stop the liquidation of FRCC and their speculation that Hope exercises some form of secret influence over those actors is not enough. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to enjoin these Defendants necessarily fails. Additionally, it appears that any preliminary relief is likely moot. Even if Plaintiffs added OMF and Maples to this action, the liquidation process has already begun and Defendants can no

Posted by Taffy52 @ 08:21 :-

Court order
To obtain preliminary relief, a plaintiff must “establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). The Ninth Circuit has elaborated on that standard by suggesting the likelihood of success on the merits is subject to a “sliding scale.” All. for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[T]he ‘serious questions’ version of the sliding scale test for preliminary injunctions remains viable after the Supreme Court’s decision in Winter.”). As quoted in Cottrell, under the sliding scale test, “[a] preliminary injunction is appropriate when a plaintiff demonstrates . . . that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tip sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” provided, of course, that “plaintiffs must also satisfy the other [Winter] factors.” Id. at 1135. III. DISCUSSION As with their application for a TRO, Plaintiffs acknowledge their motion for preliminary relief is based only on the first two claims of its FAC: (1) breach of fiduciary duty and the duty of loyalty, and (2) intentional interference with prospective economic relations, both against Hope. (Mot. at 15, 17.) As to these claims, Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden under Winter. A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits Plaintiffs’ allegations and proffered evidence do not support entitlement to preliminary relief. The bulk of their motion focuses on allegations regarding Hope’s pre-2016 conduct; allegations which are irrelevant since they predate his appointment as a director of FRC and so have no bearing on whether he breached his fiduciary duties as a director. Similarly, they have no impact on Plaintiffs’ claims for intentional interference with economic relations as those too are pegged to Hope’s service as a director. (FAC ¶ 38.) Moreover, Plaintiffs’ pre-2016 allegations appear to have been fully settled and released in connection with a Mediation Settlement Agreement between the parties in a prior bankruptcy action and related adversary proceeding in the Southern District of Texas. As for Hope’s conduct after his board appointment, Plaintiffs

Posted by Taffy52 @ 08:20 :-

Court order
This action arises out of a battle for control between the Frontera Resources Caucasus Corporation (“FRCC”), a subsidiary of Plaintiff Frontera Resources Corporation (“FRC”), and Defendants Stephen Hope, Outrider Management, LLC, and Outrider Onshore, LP. Plaintiffs FRC and another subsidiary, Frontera International Corporation (“FIC”), maintain that Defendants set out to benefit themselves at the expense of Plaintiffs’ financial viability in violation of numerous state laws. They previously sought a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) enjoining Defendants from proceeding with any further allegedly illegal actions and from attempting to liquidate the FRCC, which was denied. As with their application for a TRO, Plaintiffs have failed to raise serious questions going to the merits, let alone a showing of likely success on the merits. For the reasons discussed below, their motion for preliminary relief is denied.1 1 The facts of this case are set forth in this Court’s prior order denying TRO and need not be repeated here.

Posted by erazzel @ 15:27 and 15:32 :-

Call IG
Speak to Corporate Actions: 0800 1953100

And hear for yourselves.

IG have in fact
Hedge both ways on Long And Short positions.

They have closed positions at zero pence with no calls upon the monies. All funds are held in a proceeds account.

They said this could be frozen for weeks, months even years. It is an unknown and they are protecting costs associated. Of course, Shorters and scum wont tell the who story.

So, binary bet.

Posted by erazzel @ 15:11 and 15:25 :-

TW on Twitter

https://www.*************.com/views/43018/fat-bastard-malcolm-graham-wood-the-bulletin-board-morons-time-to-apologise-frontera-resources-officially-a-zero

STATES FRR ARE BUST AND IG HAVE PAID OUT ON SHORTS - COMPLETE LIE

After picking up the phone and liaising with corporate actions team re: FRR and delisting i asked the specific question.

Question: Are they bust, even have CFD's / Spread bets that are short been closed, even paid out?

Response: Creating proceeds account for profits at zero pence. These funds are held on the proceeds account, if the company relists at a premium then the account holder is liable.

Notification is required from the exchange or company to IG. They are ring fencing themselves only, so TW they are not BUST, and you have misrepresented the true facts. Liabellous accusations. So all start screen shooting TW and hold the evidence, if we relist he will get served. If they are bust then on ly the exchange of company can say.

Hope this helps

Posted by RainbowRider @ 14:11 :-

Smear Campaign, perhaps ?
Below Letter was sent to Zaza, prior to the Video being released.
It is featured in the video.
Main body of letter is reproduced here :

"Frontera Resources has initiated a tender for the division of raw materials for the Dolphin site on the Black Sea shelf. In this regard, there are some issues we want to clarify.
1. How does the company going to work on the shelf, if, as far as we know, Frontera Resources had no such experience before.
2. Based on your financial position data, the company’s market value is estimated at a lower assessment than the number of necessary investments for the project. Where will the company take the money.
3. Based on the lack of experience on the shelf and significant doubts about the possibility of engaging your own money, we can conclude that Frontera will play the role of intermediary in case of winning the competition, attracting stronger players in the market. Is that true ?
4. According to the journalistic investigation, after winning a smaller competition in Moldova, Frontera did nothing to search for Oil & Gas. Why? How can you explain it ?
5. Foreign Minister of Energy for Georgia accused the company of overstating oil reserves. Experts attribute this to the fact that you tried to increase the value of shares on the exchange market. What can you say about this ?
6. Whom of the Ukrainian officials, government officials, did you negotiate about the prospects for entering the Ukrainian Market ? Please name specific persons and positions ?"

Posted by EkXoc @ 11:40 :-

Abrief summary. It seems the reporter main point is that the Ukraine have been persuaded by FRR to hold a competetion for the exploration rights of the Dolphin area. The reporter implies the competition is a sham and FRR are the only runners. However this is disputed by the Ukrianians and it seems the compeptiion close on the 12th June so we will not have to wait long to find out. The article points out that 9 of the 10 oil exploration ares in Ukraine have been annexed by Russia and then oddly seems to find it incredulous that majors are NOT falling opver themselves to rush into the area! Clearly there is very high risk here to the point of the article mentioning requiring an aircraft carrier to extract the resources! All very strange further critisim is leveled at FRR due to them having the licence for Moldova but not doing any work there. The reported seems completely obvlious to the internal struggles of FRR and the hostil take over bids which ahve clearly been the cause of any lack of progress in developing the fields. They seem to acknolwdge massive obstacles to devleopment in the region but still blame FRR for no progress. The article does say that FRR are producing gass for the Georgian domestic market but not for export, so wer do have gas income? So nothing on the current court struggles this is all focuces on teh region as a whole which is good as we have not seen much info on this. If FRR ca get this court rubbish behind them it looks like they can dive straight into Moldova and we will possibly see another licence granted next week if as expected there are few applicants to neter Ukrine which TBH sounds like a nightmare to operate in!

Posted by Chris572 @ 10:56 :-

18min video talking all about Frr just appeared on YouTube , can’t imagine it’s saying anything positive considering it’s Russian/ Ukraine looking , I’m at work so il leave it to you guys to listen

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mPEsYPOEyy4&feature=youtu.be

Posted by Sycric @ 11:04 :-

"In the hottest political inter-election period in Ukraine competition for one of the largest gas fields of the Black Sea shelf - "Dolphin" - continues. The winner of the selection will receive this site for 50 years - in order to earn money himself and give the state 11 percent of the hydrocarbons extracted there. However, investigating the terms of the competition, "Schemes" found that it could be hijacked under one American firm with dubious reputation."

Posted by pophead @ 11:07 :-

Can anyone translate, in work so limited here. Big picture of SN in the heading.

https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/schemes/29985381.html

Part 3

However, it is not known how many applications have been received and how much interest in the field is.

But one bidder took an active position.

Texas initiator

Frontera Resources is a company with American roots, which itself initiated the contest. Participants in the energy market assume that it was under this competition and organized very quickly. At the same time, the analysis of the activities of this company raises doubts that the agreement with it will be the best option for the Ukrainian state.

In the year 2015, Ukrainian officials mentioned this company from a high rostrum for the first time.

In the same year two agreements of intent were signed - with the state-owned Naftohaz Ukrainy and its structure - Ukrgazvydobuvannya. However, these agreements are still not secured by signing contracts. Just as the LNG-terminal announced today by the then prime minister.

Frontera Resources is a company with American roots, which itself initiated the contest
But in a few years it was Frontera Resources, having failed to implement the previous initiative - has already made a new decision: to hold a competition in Ukraine for the distribution of gas and oil from the Black Sea. And the government announced such a competition.

What is a company that wants to work on the Dolphin?

The company’s two key players are Steve Nichandros, Honorary President of Frontera Resources, a businessman, former member of the Atlantic Council’s international advisory council. But Zaza Mamulaishvili is a co-founder, a board member of Frontera, a businessman of Georgian descent.

The company’s head office is in Texas. However, Frontera’s business interests are mainly concentrated in Georgia and Moldova.

So, Scheme has researched the company’s success in these countries.

Moldovan experience

In 2016, the government of Moldova, as well as in Ukraine, held a competition for the study and development of subsoil. And on an area even bigger than “Dolphin” - 12 thousand square meters of land.

This happened, as in Ukraine, after consulting Frontera Resources. And this company won the competition, bypassing the single

Part 2

The tender documents, published by the Ministry of Energy, say that the resource base is estimated at 286 million tons of conventional fuel. And the potential investor put forward the requirements:

one and a half billion hryvnias of exploration investments;
at least 5 wells for the first five years; the state share of profitable production should be at least 11%.

In addition - one nasty nuance. Within the area - captured Ukrainian gas-extracting facilities and armed Russians on them. However, they are not included in the site - they were carefully cut off from there.

Experts confirm that the “Dolphin” proposed by the government is more than a promising area, and indeed you can find significant reserves of hydrocarbons.

“The shelf has been explored for less than 3% today,” says Vladimir Omelchenko, director of energy programs at the Razumkov Center. - And the possibility of finding large stocks of oil and gas there is quite high. "

Who put an eye on these 9.5 thousand square kilometers of sea with potential nearly three hundred million tons of raw materials - Ukrainians will learn very soon.

Indeed, on June 12, 2019, the 60-day deadline for submitting applications expires. Then there will be an opening of proposals by the interagency commission on resource allocation, headed by Energy Minister Igor Nasalik.

Posted by Symore_Bottoms on ii :-

The following uncovered by Chris, Pophead, Syric

????? ??????? 1

????????? ?? «????????»: ??? ?????? ??? ?? ????????? ????????? ??????? ? ???????...
«?????» ?????????????? ??????? ?? ????? 50 ????? ????????????? ????????? ?????????????? ??????

And YouTube coverage although in Russian

????????? ?? «????????»: ??? ??????? ????????? ????????? ??????? ? ??????? ????? || ????? ?218
Translation of the article below via GoogleTranslate.

Man this Frontera story just keeps getting bigger and bigger.

“To independently extract oil and gas in the Black Sea, where there are huge deposits of hydrocarbons, is part of Ukraine’s strategic plan to reduce energy dependence on Russia. To do this, Ukraine in 2011 even bought two drilling rigs - though with great overpayment - they are more commonly known as “Boyka towers”. But in the end they were taken by Russia - along with the annexation of the Crimea.

So, for today, the state does not have enough own capacities to develop the Black Sea shelf. As a result, she announced a competition for the involvement of a private partner for the development of the Dolphin seafront - one of the largest gas fields in the Black Sea. The winner of the selection will receive it for use for 50 years, to earn himself and give the state 11% of hydrocarbons extracted. However, investigating the terms of the competition, “Schemes” found that it could be “hacked” under one “problem” American firm.

At 130 kilometers from Odesa in the Black Sea, there is the Odessa gas field, followed by Golitsynskaya and Stormovaya. By spring of 2014 it was developed by the Ukrainian state-owned joint-stock company “Chornomornaftogaz”.

However, in 2014, Russia annexed the Crimea and seized 9 out of 10 deposits, for which the Ukrainian Chornomornaftogaz licensed. Now they are controlled by a clone - “Chernomorneftegaz”, registered under Russian legislation.

Controls along with the Ukrainian gas pipeline built by Ukraine. Russians captured even those shelves that are closer to mainland Ukraine than to the Crimea.

They are offered to find them in the Black Sea, within the Dolphin section, and to be extracted from the state. The agreement stipulates that such cooperation will last for half a century.

Hunting for “Dolphin”

“Dolphin” is almost 9,5 thousand square kilometers of sea. This area is larger than, for example, the whole territory of the Republic of Cyprus.

Posted by Oopsi @ 14:37 :-

Disappointed but not at all surprised by the injunction ruling. Entirely expected. I’m not sure it is of any real significance now in any event. That’s the first line of defence breached. The real test is what the liquidators do in relation to the movement of the asset. The motion for Plaintiffs to file a brief regarding monetary sanctions is interesting. I’ve done some digging this morning and think I have found the relevant part of the Californian Code of Civil Procedure that deals with this https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-128-7.html.

There appears to be some shennaningans that have been going on in terms of the way Hope’s case was put forward – whether that is factual inaccuracies, something more sinister or otherwise. That’s sparked the request for monetary sanctions by us. It is a side issue but not something you want being made against you..

Posted by Taffy52 @ 02:47 :-

Full docket text for document 40:
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard Seeborg: Motion Hearing held on 6/6/2019 re [36] MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Frontera International Corporation, Frontera Resources Corporation. Plaintiff may file a brief regarding monetary sanctions by 6/14/19. Preliminary Injunction Denied. Court to issue an order.
Total Time in Court: 1 hour. Court Reporter: Jo Ann Bryce.

Plaintiff Attorney: William DeClercq.
Defendant Attorney: Gregg Ficks, John Cornwell, Ross Parker.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/6/2019) Modified on 6/6/2019 (cl, COURT STAFF).

Posted by Tsbs @ 20:00 :-
for anyone thats interested

Thank you for your email.

I confirm that David Griffin and Andrew Morrison of FTI Consulting (Cayman) Ltd. were appointed as Joint Voluntary Liquidators (“JVLs”) of Frontera Resources Caucasus Corporation (“FRCC”) only.

According to FRCC’s books and records, you are not detailed as a shareholder of FRCC. The JVLs understand that the ultimate parent company of FRCC, being Frontera Resources Corporation (“FRC”), is a publicly listed company and the JVLs therefore expect that you may be a shareholder of that entity instead.

The JVLs have no control or authority in relation to FRC and are therefore unable to deal with queries in relation to that entity. The JVLs suggest that you liaise with your usual representative of FRC.

Posted by bugsy-b @ 20:49 yesterday :-

Firm Profile: Summary, 2019 Groups That Have Retained Cornerstone Government Affairs:

Frontera Resources $50,000 - Oil & Gas

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmsum.php?id=D000021939&year=2019

Posted by Chis 572 @ 18:01 yesterday :-

found more tenders for BP in Georgia COB dated 19th April 2019 so fairly recent. Loads of info here so i wont post it all, they are looking for land transportation and fleet management and it says 'border crossing will primarily be between Azerbaijan and Turkey' soooo are they bring in equipment into Georgia then?

PROVISION OF LAND TRANSPORTATION & FLEET MANAGEMENT SERVICES

>BIDDER shall provide different type of fleet of Light Vehicles Sedan, SUV, Pick-ups, Multi Passenger Vehicles (minibus up to 16 seat, minicoach up to 8 seat ) with short term rent (day, week , month) or long term vehicle lease ( 1-5 years) ; for long distance (over 25 km)

>BIDDER shall provide the comprehensive insurance coverage for vehicles

>Provision of qualified and competent drivers to meet COMPANY land transportation demand

>24/7 Journey Management Plan (JMP) for trips, exceeding 25km or other remote locations/field site

>BIDDER shall provide fully managed Vehicle Maintenance Services to the existing COMPANY owned fleet,

https://eugbc.net/announcement-bp-exploration-caspian-sea/

Posted by Chris572 @ 15:15 yesterday :-

what is interesting about BP in Georgia is they seem to be a Public Bid Announcement for BP Exploration (Caspian Sea) they seems to be looking for contractors for the following in Georgia:

CAMP MANAGEMENT AND CATERING SERVICES FOR BP GEORGIA REMOTE FACILITIES
Applicant shall accomplish delivery of fully sustainable and uninterrupted provisions of self-performed or sub-contracted 3rd party services (as required), within the Scope of Services, that INCLUDES:

Provision of catering services
Provision of lodging Services
Provision of all necessary catering and lodging supplies (i.e. crockery / cutlery / bed linen / towels / soft furnishings) to carry out the service
Cleaning services
Laundry Services
Recreation services management
Waste collection and segregation
Provision of indoor housekeeping Services
Hotel/ Guesthouse Management
People on Board (POB) management
Pest Control Services

BP planning on setting up camp in Remote area of Georgia eh ??? this article was posted 6 days ago

http://eugbc.net/bp-announces-public-tender-on-the-following-scopes-%F0%9F%91%87/

Posted by Symore_Bottoms on ii :-

Lots of jittery shareholders nerves around Fozz but our solace (for now) should come the fact the Directors are fully aligned and are fighting this court case hard with Hope, with top notch lawyers. In fact I think FRR lawyers played a bit of a blinder in California. Consider this, FRR’s preliminary submission was ‘light’ (deliberately?) and Hope’s legal team responded with a robust rebuttal, but in their response, they did not address the primary allegations of breach in his fiduciary duties, which is what this case is about! Finally, FRR team countered with a damn strong response quoting relevant test cases and legislation. It will be interesting to now hear how they intend to re-address or justify Hope’s own admission that his primary focus on the Board was to protect OMF debt. This case could potentially become another test case where a Creditor takes on a Board position to protect his own interest (and what NOT to do). If he is found guilty, they will throw the book at him because the Court cannot allow any Creditor to behave in a toxic, self serving (but privileged) position.

JMO

Posted by Symore_Bottoms on ii :-

Well, nice to see things are gearing up operationally for BP in Georgia. Makes you wonder why when they don’t have any blocks assigned to them (as far as I am aware) - can’t be all infra related as the pipelines are finished. But then why would BP bother going through all the hassle of expense and time of virgin exploration when FRR has done all the leg work? Plus we know they have been talking to FRR for best part of 18 months, finally culminating in the NDA. We can only assume that BP has decided to sign on the dotted line and farmed in to FRR’s mega Gas field with an upfront payment to repay Hope (but will continue with the Fiduciary court case). Who knows. May be wishful thinking of a desperate FRR shareholder but with BP signing a deal with Kosmos in Africa on the gas, clearly shows their primary focus has shifted on gas and Georgia could be strategic for BP on a few levels, so farmin would be strong a strong fit. Also, many super majors have stepped in to Georgia (Exxon, TOTAL, Repsol, Schulumberger, Chinese etc), which may have been a catalyst to get the BP NDA signed last Sept. if this the case, then the $30m court case with Outrider becomes a side show.

All just food for thought. Immediate eyes on Thursday/Friday.

Can we say (#bp): come out, come out wherever you are?

Posted by regdik @ 09:25 and 09:39 :-

interesting find regarding BP mobilising a local contractor base field workforce. I would not get hung up on location as BP engineers will have planned the optimum route based on a lot of factors (safety, disruption and ease of feed in from the optimum number of potential sources - they will not zig zag field to field).
I have said earlier that BP are tooling up in the region and we know BP have been talking and reviewing FRR's data. As this is drawing to a conclusion (CC) then BP are getting ready to proceed but will it be with FRR. So not long to wait as BP once started will progress quickly.

ownership of B12 will not be an issue (GG are the owners) but the cost recovery pool will be of interest (400M) as this gives them a much better business case. FRR data got them interested and GG will have assured BP that they will recover the licence if FRR fail hence BP are now spending in country and with FRR data they will know where to drill and issues that they may get - this data is worth a fortune as each drill will be in the 10M to do properly.