Member Info for Madpunter

Posted by garytrader @ 10:20 :-

The transaction proposed in November—new financing expressly senior to the Note—was approved after excluding Hope’s vote, but ultimately failed. The transaction proposed in April—a farmout agreement with a Frontera entity allegedly not subject to the Outrider Note obligations—was executed, thereby purporting to transfer all of Frontera Resources Georgia Corporation’s (“FRGC”) oil and gas assets in exchange for a 5% royalty interest and debt relief unrelated to the Notes and of highly questionable veracity. With respect to each of these transactions, Hope’s request for basic background and explanation was denied, and his vote as FRC director was excluded in order to achieve the requisite “unanimous” vote. Additionally, Outrider has learned that Frontera has approved a production sharing contract through operating company FRGC, which improperly grants unknown party Green Capital LLC a security interest directly in the operating assets, in violation of the OMF loan agreement. Despite numerous requests by Hope, both in his capacity as secured creditor and board member, Frontera has refused to provide meaningful basic detail regarding the Green Capital transaction.

Posted by 5pPlasticBagget @ 04:17 :-

And also another Doc
Opposition/Response to Motion
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14933328/frontera-resources-corporation-v-hope/

Posted by WHamBoy @ 23:04 :-
Here’s another one...
Order on Motion for Pro Hac Vice
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14933328/frontera-resources-corporation-v-hope/

Posted by daniel1son @ 03:57 :-

The 2 latest docs have just been uploaded to Dropbox!

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6lw9qe59pv1dh8e/AADZUU2UqC1uFd72_O8iQA3Va?dl=0

Posted by bugsy-b @ 22:09 :-

Insider Trading
The US courts have scant regards for anyone now using inside knowledge for personal gain.. And very adept the prosecutors are at bringing these people to book...
Just been reading an article on one Billy Walters who made $40 million that way.. Interesting how they snared him...

"
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/e50bd70e-1b11-11e7-bcac-6d03d067f81f

Today, Billy Walters lost his bet that he could cheat the securities markets on a massive scale and get away with it scot-free,” Joon Kim, the acting US attorney, said in a statement.

Prosecutors used phone and trading records against the backdrop of confidential board meetings of Dean Foods to show a “brazen” pattern of trades by Mr Walters"...

"
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/e50bd70e-1b11-11e7-bcac-6d03d067f81f

Mr Davis, a former banker, golfer, and long-time friend of Mr Walters, said that from at least 2008 until 2013 he had given his friend “extensive information” about Dean Foods, hoping in exchange he might gain gambling tips or business investments. Prosecutors showed Mr Davis dialled into board meetings and then called Mr Walters. On two occasions, prosecutors said, Mr Walters called his broker the very same minute he hung up with Mr Davis"..

Just shows you how these prosecutors can delve into phone records for proof...

Then this part intrigued me..
"
Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.
https://www.ft.com/content/e50bd70e-1b11-11e7-bcac-6d03d067f81f

Prosecutors allege that when Mr Walters had a sure bet, such as the WhiteWave spin-off, he shared the information with friends, including Mr Mickelson, who made nearly $1m on the trade. Mr Mickelson was not accused of wrongdoing and repaid his profits in a civil regulatory settlement"...

Repaid his profits in a civil regulatory settlement".. How odd.. That report showed OM "Has Civil Regulatory Settlement".. The mind bog

Posted by bugsy-b @ 20:37 :-

"Significant Red Flags
Disclosure Reporting Pages (DRPs)

Has Legal Enjoinment
Has Legal Violation
Has Civil Regulatory Settlement
Has Pending Civil Disclosure..

hmmmm... Wonder what this means... (near bottom of page)..

https://predictiveops.com/advisers/130152

Posted by Syric @ 17:09 :-

Think this is him, he's cleared his photo off Linkedin.
http://bit.ly/2vs56LN

Posted by Chris572 @ 07:17 :-

This is not the first attempt by some US lawmakers to impose sanctions on the government of the Georgian Dream.

Georgia may be included in the US sanctions list. The US Congress will consider the relevant bill. The reason is the pressure on the business, which, in the opinion of American lawmakers, is carried out by the Georgian authorities. How likely is this development and how did Tbilisi react to unpleasant news from Washington?

Impose sanctions on Georgia if it turns out that the government violates contractual agreements with persons representing the United States (US citizens; foreigners permanently residing in the US; legal entities established in accordance with US law) and conducting business operations in Georgia. The House of Representatives of the US Congress will consider a bill submitted by the representative of the Republican Party of Oklahoma, Marquein Mallin. The document that received the working title “The Sanctions Act on Fair Business Practices of Georgia of 2019”,

Georgian officials will have a hard time. Their property in the United States, if any, will be arrested, and bank assets frozen. Also, persons involved in such a report should no longer expect to receive a US visa or other documents to enter the United States. In the case of a valid visa, it will be canceled.

This is not the first attempt by some American lawmakers to impose sanctions on the government of the Georgian Dream. In December 2017, another Republican, Steve Russell, also introduced a bill to Congress, implying sanctions because of alleged pressure on American business in the country. The reason was then called information about state intervention in the activities of world tobacco giant Philip Morris, as well as the oil-extracting Frontera Resources and the mining Georgian Manganese, with American capital. Last time, Congress did not approve the document. Official Tbilisi expressed confidence that even now American lawmakers will not be led by individual politicians who do not have accurate information.

https://www.ekhokavkaza.com/a/29906191.html

The suspension of share certificates

Posted by HeidHoncho @ 15:40 :-

Bit of a long shot, but could it be because .........

Through generating, and registering the number of shares being requested, that it became so clearly apparent that they could not disregard it any further, that there were more shares being requested to be certified than had been officially issued.
The resulting reason being that it was becoming apparent that it was becoming likely that more shares were potentially going to be claimed to be held than had been issued, due to a large number of shares having been nakedly shorted.

The realisation of such would have been reason enough to halt the generation of certified share certificates, at least until such time as an investigation could be concluded as to the scale of the naked shorting could be identified, and a solution sought as to how it would be required to contend with that issue/ownership imbalance.

Just a thought to muse over, even though it is no more, nor less, random than some of the other reasons being postulated about.

Posted by Zeninvestor @ 16:39 :-

Theories put forward so far as to why the issuing of share certificates may be suspended:

1. The shares in a particular account are out on loan to shorters and have not been replaced.

2. There is an excess in the total number of shares in circulation beyond the number of registered shares. This could mean that someone has ‘naked shorted’.

3. A share consolidation is under way.

4. Some kind of share swap or equity transaction could be under way.

Have I missed anything ?

Posted by garytrader @ 23:54 :-

CLERK'S NOTICE RE REASSIGNED CASE: You are notified that the Court has scheduled an Initial Case Management Conference before Judge Richard Seeborg upon reassignment. For a copy of Judge Seeborg's Standing Order and other information, please refer to the Court's website at www.cand.uscourts.gov. Parties or counsel may appear personally at 10:00 a.m. or file a request to appear by telephone at 11:00 am. If any party files such a request to appear by telephone, the Case Management Conference shall be moved to 11:00 am to be held telephonically. All parties shall appear telephonically and must contact Court Conference at 866/582-6878 at least one week prior to the Conference. Case Management Statement due by 7/25/2019. Initial Case Management Conference set for 8/1/2019 at 10:00 AM in San Francisco, Courtroom 03, 17th Floor. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/26/2019) (Entered: 04/26/2019)

Posted by daniel1son @ 20:18 :-

Anyone who wants to read for themselves, ive uploaded the new document - order rebrief schedule.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6lw9qe59pv1dh8e/AADZUU2UqC1uFd72_O8iQA3Va?dl=0

It doesnt look as though Hope is actually enforcing against the security (as of yet). It seems as though its strike and counter strike.

Anyway, if the 2 parties dont agree a way forwards, the judge will hear Hopes defense in relation to the TRO.

Posted by garytrader @19:16 :-

Plaintiffs request a ruling on the motion by April 29, 2019. Although Plaintiffs do not appear to have unduly delayed filing either the Complaint or the subsequent motion for a TRO, the circumstances suggest the matter does not warrant expedited treatment on as abbreviated a schedule as Plaintiffs propose.
Accordingly, the parties are directed to meet and confer forthwith to negotiate a briefing schedule in view of the guidance of this order. The parties are encouraged to stipulate to proceed directly to the preliminary injunction stage, with briefing to be complete within the next approximately 10 days to two weeks. In the event such a stipulated briefing schedule is filed, the matter will then be submitted for decision or set for a hearing at the earliest possible time following completion of the briefing in the Court’s discretion.
In the event the parties are unable to reach agreement, Defendants shall file any opposition to the motion for a TRO no later than 5:00 PM on May 2, 2019. The matter will then be submitted for decision or set for hearing in the Court’s discretion.

Posted by Oopsi @15:04 :-

Also look at the timings which are interesting. 14 April Frontera issue proceedings in California, 15 April hearing in Cayman, 17 April enforcement notices issued. What is odd is that we wait until 24 April to amend the summons to include injunctive relief proceedings. These injunctive proceedings are of the utmost importance to FRR and its very existence. I have injuncted the same night/next day in similar circumstances. I’m not an expert on the US legal system but 7 days in the circumstances is a long time. The amended summons for injunctive relief is virtually identical to the original summons filed in the Californian proceedings so not much extra work required there.

My guess is the delay was because they tried to work out a settlement but it appears that hasn’t proved possible. Once negotiations broke down , FRR had no alternative. So although on the face of it it appears that we are far away from resolving this matter the reality maybe that we are closer than people think.

Posted by Oopsi @ 15:01 :-

We effectively find ourselves in the same position we were in when we applied for injunctive relief before the Cayman courts. The difference on this occasion is that we are now at the mercy of the Californian courts.

As usual, there are more questions than answers. Some quick thoughts:

Why, if we had injunctive relief secured in Cayman (albeit temporarily) did we issue proceedings in California to go through the whole process again? I suspect this is because ultimately we felt that we would lose on the merits given the Judge’s initial comments. There may be an element of forum shopping here and we took legal advice in California which offered better chances of success/create more tactical pressure(jury trial). Hope’s enforcement notice is also a direct response to the issue of proceedings in California and shows the battle really hotting up. Had we not issued proceedings there, I doubt he would have taken these steps (after all he had the chance since the alleged default occurred on 10 October 2018 and he hadn’t). I just hope the advice we have on securing injunctive relief accords with the Judge’s view.

The $64,000 question is what is the current status of the proceedings in Cayman? If the injunction was still in force then I sincerely doubt that Hope would have been able to issue an enforcement notice in Cayman or take any insolvency steps given that Frontera Resources Caucasus Corporation is incorporated in the Cayman Islands. There are three possible scenarios. The first that the injunction has been discharged. I don’t think this is plausible as the matter does not appear to have reached the Court of Appeal. The second is that Hope is ignoring the injunction and will rely on proceedings in California. That just seems plain daft. Thirdly, and the view that seems most plausible at the moment, is that the Cayman proceedings, including the injunction, have been stayed. This makes more sense given that there was a hearing for an adjourned summons in Cayman and the Californian proceedings were issued just before the hearing of the adjourned summons in Cayman. This theory also has credence because not once in the amended Californian summons do we reference the Cayman injunction and there being a breach of those terms. It also explains why Maples (Cayman based) have now issued the enforcement notice as if there was an injunction in place, I would assume (although I haven’t seen the terms of the injunction) it would apply to third parties and Maples/Outrider would be in contempt if it took steps in contravention of the injunction.

I think we will know one way or another very soon – injunctive proceedings are by their very nature urgent and it is even more pressing in this case. The Californian legal system seems transparent and expeditious so expect a hearing and decision very soon.

Posted by Oopsi @ 10:19 :-

Morning All

Apologies for being brief but two quick points:

It’s easy to get carried away with the general euphoria (as did I this morning) at the moment but this needs to be tempered. Danie1son was right that this order has not been signed by the judge. I can’t tell from the documents whether a hearing has taken place for the injunctive relief. But it is part of the procedure for filing for injunctive relief that the party seeking relief prepares a draft order for the judge to sign (see below link). This appears to me what we have done and at this stage and no more. I really hope the hearing has taken place and the order just needs to be signed off on but in the absence of further documentation/evidence, I cannot make that leap. I sincerely hope someone else can help me do that. For what it’s worth, I think we will find out today or early next week at the latest.

Secondly, it is also interesting to note that the Collateral Agreement (Clause 7.13) specifically excludes a jury trial for any issues arising under that agreement. That is quite telling as it demonstrates a clear desire to stay away from this form of resolution. Of course the breach of fiduciary claims etc don’t arise from the above agreement and a jury trial has been deliberately chosen because it is the forum Hope least wants to be in. That appears to be a tactically astute move and it has certainly thrown the cat amongst the pigeons.

https://saclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/lrg-ex-parte-tro.pdf

Posted by daniel1son @ 11:31 :-

Dropbox
Think I've managed to do this properly, but here are the details I've downloaded so far:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/6lw9qe59pv1dh8e/AADZUU2UqC1uFd72_O8iQA3Va?dl=0

Thanks,

The court documents were actually posted earlier by investmentboy@ 00:25.

Posted by daniel1son @ 06:04 :-

Now, the good news and as I expected:

The Court, having considered the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (the “Motion”) of Plaintiffs Frontera Resources Corporation and Frontera International Corporation (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), the opposition thereto, and having heard the oral argument of counsel and having found good cause to do so, hereby orders as follows:

1. The Motion is GRANTED;
2. The Court finds that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Duty of Loyalty.
3. The Court further finds that unless a temporary restraining order is granted, irreparable harm will result to Plaintiffs.
4. And, the Court finds that the balance of harms and the public interest favor granting injunctive relief to Plaintiffs.
Therefore, and with good cause shown,

Worth noting though, that doc hasnt been signed by the judge / clerk yet and is called a proposed order, so not 100% sure if that's gone through.

Posted by daniel1son @ 05:57 :-

Judge Reassigned, we now have: Richard Seeborg. Reasons for this, as follows:

CLERK'S NOTICE OF IMPENDING REASSIGNMENT TO A U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE: The Clerk of this Court will now randomly reassign this case to a District Judge because either (1) a party has not consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge, or (2) time is of the essence in deciding a pending judicial action for which the necessary consents to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction have not been secured. You will be informed by separate notice of the district judge to whom this case is reassigned. ALL HEARING DATES PRESENTLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE CURRENT MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARE VACATED AND SHOULD BE RE-NOTICED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE JUDGE TO WHOM THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED. This is a text only docket entry; there is no document associated with this notice

Likely to be point 2, as FRR need the restraining order as a matter of urgency.

Also, FRR have confirmed there are no other parties that they are aware of, that need to be included in the case.

Posted by baggage1 @ 05:55 :-

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/14933328/frontera-resources-corporation-v-hope/