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

Posted by Looed on the 15th June :-

RE: Talakvadze on the letter of the Congressman: The guide for us is the official positions of the US St
DomFok - that article is from 20 Jan. I guess CV ended up stopped any such meeting happening in the USA - and we don't know that they would have been made welcome!

Posted by DomFok on the 15th June :-

Yes just noticed, thanks Looed

Posted by DomFok on the 15th June :-

RE: Talakvadze on the letter of the Congressman: The guide for us is the official positions of the US St
In response to a scathing letter from the US Congressman, the Georgian Dream has planned another visit to the United States.

The parliamentary delegation will leave for Washington after the start of the spring session and, as Parliament Speaker Archil Talakvadze said, the meetings will be held with both government agencies and the non-governmental sector.

In addition, the head of the legislature responded directly to the letter of the congressman, noting that the criticism is related to the company " Frontera ". According to him, the Georgian government is paying attention to the official statements and positions of the United States.

"The statement of a specific congressman, as it appears from his text, is connected with the dispute with the company" Frontera ". I think our state will protect its interests in connection with this dispute. As for the position of our strategic partner, the United States, the guide for us here is the official positions of the U.S. Department of State. The assessment of American partners is that Georgia has made irreversible progress in strengthening democratic institutions and protecting human rights. We are planning a high-level visit to the United States in the near future, "Talakvadze said.

The chairman of the Human Rights Committee also made a statement on the same topic. Sophio Kiladze says the government is doing its best to attract American and European investors to Georgia.

"American and European investments are in the interests of our team and our people. We are working to bring as many American and European investors as possible to Georgia. "As for the issue of Frontera , which is raised in this letter, it is unfortunate that the company has not paid off the debt that arose in 2019," - said Kiladze.

Posted by Looed on the 14th June :-

I am not going to cut and paste the next document as its 73 pages - it i s request from Lloyds that the case be moved from Civil Court to Federal Court -
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD AND TO THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London Subscribing t0 Policy No. B1636N1 81678 (“Hiscox” 0r “Defendant”) and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London Subscribing to Policy N0. DFS-0000018-03 (“Pioneer”) filed a Notice 0f Removal of Action Pursuant t0 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(B), and 1446 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. A copy 0f the Notice of Removal is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

There is lots of back and forth on the Parties and then this

15 . In the Complaint filed in the State Action, Plaintiffs state that they have submitted t0 Hiscox and Pioneer $941,224.33 in defense costs for reimbursement, and state that they seek t0 recover compensatory and punitive damages resulting from Pioneer’s alleged actions in an amount in excess of $1.5 million, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in this coverage action. (Compl. 1H] 18, 52.) As such, the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00.

Its signed by Lloyds and dated 26/3/20. Then there is a copy of the document I just posted. An order for mediation which seems didn't happen, some routine admin doc's,

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/DocumentViewer/DownloadDocumentFile/Download?d=xBS4U2u5j-kB50ukcX7V7A2&c=9-PitGDdFevZtZ01jO3NkQ2&l=OAnbw_NJUtNpoDqVVZ1qXw2&cn=MprXpZ3YnChso_JSsP2sUw2&fileName=20-CIV-00990%20-%20Removal%20to%20Federal%20Court&docTypeId=3

You should be able to find all the documents related to the San Mateo case here. That was exhausting!

https://odyportal-ext.sanmateocourt.org/Portal-External/Home/WorkspaceMode?p=0

Posted by Oopsi on the 14th June :-

Thanks Looed and Puddy for your incredible efforts - much appreciated.

It's a claim under the legal expenses insurance for funds already expended (particularly in Cayman) and ongoing legal expenses. We don't know how it turned out but I'm guessing it was favourable for Hope given the timeframe in which it was resolved and a defence doesn't appear to be have been filed. If it was on favourable terms it gives Hope a virtual free ride in the litigation which will strengthen his bargaining position. Anything the insurers pay out they will seek to recover from FRR if Hope gets a costs order (he already has one in Cayman).

Posted by Looed on the 14th June :-

Pt.9
52. As a direct and proximate result 0f Pioneer’s breach 0f the implied covenant 0f good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs has sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but expected t0 total $1,500,000, plus interest at the legal rate. Also, pursuant t0 Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 813 (1985), Plaintiffs are entitled t0 recover all attorneys’ fees that it has reasonably incurred, and continues t0 incur, in its efforts t0 obtain the benefits due under the Pioneer Policy that Pioneer wrongfully has Withheld, and is Withholding, in bad faith. Plaintiffs are also entitled t0 interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
53. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis alleges, that Pioneer —acting through one 0r more if its officers, directors, 0r other corporate employees With substantial independent and discretionary authority over significant aspects 0f Pioneer’s business—performed, authorized, and/or ratified the bad-faith conduct alleged above.
54. Pioneer’s conduct is despicable and has been done with a conscious disregard 0f Plaintiffs’ rights, constituting oppression, fraud, and/or malice. Pioneer has engaged in a series 0f acts designed to deny Plaintiffs the benefits due under the Pioneer Policy. Specifically, Pioneer, by acting as alleged above, in light of information, facts, and relevant law to the contrary, consciously disregarded Plaintiffs’ rights and forced Plaintiffs t0 incur substantial financial losses, thereby inflicting substantial financial damage on Plaintiffs. Pioneer ignored Plaintiffs’ interests and concerns with the requisite intent t0 injure Within the meaning 0f California Civil Code section 3294. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled t0 recover punitive damages from Pioneer in an amount sufficient t0 punish and t0 make an example 0f Pioneer and t0 deter similar conduct in the future.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief — Plaintiffs’ Claim Against Pioneer and Hiscox)
55. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 21.
56. There presently exists an actual controversy between Plaintiffs, 0n the one hand, and Pioneer and Hiscox, 0n the other hand, concerning Pioneer and Hiscox’s obligations and duties owed t0 Plaintiffs pursuant to the Pioneer Policy and the Hiscox Policy. Specifically, Plaintiffs contend that Pioneer and Hiscox together owe a duty to pay all reasonable and necessary defense fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in the Actions, subject only t0 the applicable limits and deductibles of the Pioneer and Hiscox Policies. Pioneer and Hiscox dispute this contention.
57. Plaintiffs request ajudicial declaration of the respective rights and duties of Plaintiffs and Pioneer under the Pioneer Policy, as well as a judicial declaration 0f the respective rights and duties 0f Plaintiffs and Hiscox under the Hiscox Policy.

Posted by Looed on the 14th June :-

Pt.8
49. Instead 0f complying with these duties, Pioneer acted in bad faith by, among other things;
a. failing and refusing t0 pay defense fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in connection With the Action;
purporting to impose an arbitrary and improper allocation 0f defense fees and costs, instead ofpaying or reimbursing all defense fees and costs owed under the Pioneer Policy;
failing to promptly conduct a full and thorough investigation of the Actions and asserting grounds for denying and/or limited coverage based upon its inadequate investigation;
failing to fully inquire into possible bases that might support coverage for the Actions;
asserting grounds for limiting coverage for the Actions that it knows are not supported by, and in fact are contrary t0, the terms of the Pioneer Policy, the law, insurance industry custom and practices, and the facts;
misrepresenting one or more material facts and/or Pioneer Policy provisions relating to coverage;
failing t0 effectuate a prompt, fair, and equitable settlement 0f Plaintiffs’ covered claim;
failing to promptly provide Plaintiffs With a reasonable explanation of the basis in law 0r fact for the denial of Plaintiffs’ claim;
refusing to affirm 0r deny coverage within a reasonable time;
taking a coverage position that is contrary t0 Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations of coverage;
giving greater consideration t0 its own interests than it gave Plaintiffs’ interests;
based 0n information and belief, failing t0 have appropriate claims handling guidelines and failing t0 consider and act in accord with the governing legal requirements; and
m. otherwise acting as alleged above.In breach of the implied covenant 0f good faith and fair dealing, Pioneer did the
50. things and committed the acts alleged above for the purpose 0f consciously Withholding from Plaintiffs the rights and benefits t0 Which it was and is entitled under the Pioneer Policy and California law.
51. Pioneer’s acts are inconsistent with the reasonable expectations 0f Plaintiffs, are contrary t0 established insurance industry custom and practice, are contrary t0 legal requirements, are contrary to the express terms 0f the Pioneer Policy, and constitute bad faith.
52. As a direct and proximate result 0f Pioneer’s breach 0f the implied covenant 0f good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs has sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but expected t0 total $1,500,000, plus interest at the legal rate. Also, pursuant t0 Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 813 (1985), Plaintiffs are entitled t0 recover all attorneys’ fees that it has reasonably incurred, and continues t0 incur, in its efforts t0 obtain the benefits due under the Pioneer Policy that Pioneer wrongfully has Withheld, and is Withholding, in bad faith. Plaintiffs are also entitled t0 interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.

Posted by Looed on the 14th June :-

Pt.7
3. Pioneer also had a duty under the Pioneer Policy, the law, and insurance industry custom and practice t0 promptly conduct a full and thorough investigation, including all bases that might support Plaintiffs’ claim for coverage for the Actions. Pioneer also had a duty t0 give at least as much consideration t0 Plaintiffs’ interests as it gave t0 its own interests in assessing coverage for the Actions.
44. Pioneer has breached the Pioneer Policy by, among other things:
a. failing t0 reimburse Plaintiffs under the terms of the Pioneer Policy for
defense costs incurred in the Actions;
b. purporting t0 impose an arbitrary and improper allocation 0f defense fees and
costs, instead of paying or reimbursing all defense fees and costs owed under the Pioneer Policy;
c. failing to promptly, fully, and thoroughly investigate Plaintiffs’ claim for coverage for the Actions;
d. failing t0 give at least as much consideration t0 Plaintiffs’ interests as it gave its own interests; and
e. otherwise acting as alleged above, all in breach 0f its duties under the Pioneer Policy.
45. As a direct and proximate result 0f Pioneer’s contractual breaches, Plaintiffs have sustained damages in an amount t0 be determined according t0 proof, plus interest at the legal rate. Plaintiffs continue t0 suffer damages because 0f Pioneer’s contractual breaches and will seek leave t0 amend this complaint once he ascertains the full extent 0f their damages.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach 0f Implied Covenant 0f Good Faith and Fair Dealing — Plaintiffs’ Claim Against Pioneer)
46. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 and 4O through 44 above.
47. Implied in the Pioneer Policy is a covenant that Pioneer would act in good faith and deal fairly with Plaintiffs, would do nothing to interfere with the right 0f Plaintiffs t0 receive benefits due under the policy, and would give at least the same level 0f consideration t0 Plaintiffs’ interests as it gave to its own interests.
48. Pioneer also had a duty under the Pioneer Policy, the law, and insurance industry custom, practice, and standards to conduct a prompt and thorough investigation, including all of the bases that might support Plaintiffs’ claim for coverage, before asserting coverage defenses 0r denying coverage for certain amounts claimed by Plaintiffs.

Posted by Looed on the 14th June :-

Pt.6
36. As a direct and proximate result 0f Hiscox’s breach 0f the implied covenant 0f good faith and fair dealing, Mr. Hope has sustained damages in an amount to be proven at trial, plus interest at the legal rate. Also, pursuant to Brandt v. Superior Court, 37 Cal. 3d 813 (1985), Mr. Hope is entitled t0 recover all attorneys’ fees that he has reasonably incurred, and continues t0 incur, in his efforts t0 obtain the benefits due under the Hiscox Policy that Hiscox wrongfully has Withheld, and is Withholding, in bad faith. Mr. Hope also is entitled t0 interest thereon at the maximum legal rate.
37. Mr. Hope is informed and believes, and 0n that basis alleges, that Hiscox — acting through one 0r more if its officers, directors, 0r other corporate employees With substantial independent and discretionary authority over significant aspects 0fHiscox’s business —performed, authorized, and/or ratified the bad-faith conduct alleged above.
38. Hiscox’s conduct is despicable and has been done with a conscious disregard 0f Mr. Hope’s rights, constituting oppression, fraud, and/or malice. Hiscox has engaged in a series 0f acts designed to deny Mr. Hope the benefits due under the Hiscox Policy. Specifically, Hiscox, by acting as alleged above, in light 0f information, facts, and relevant law t0 the contrary, consciously disregarded Mr. Hope’s rights and forced Mr. Hope t0 incur substantial financial losses, thereby inflicting substantial financial damage 0n Mr. Hope. Hiscox ignored Mr. Hope’s interests and concerns With the requisite intent t0 injure Within the meaning 0f California Civil Code section 3294.
Therefore, Mr. Hope is entitled t0 recover punitive damages from Hiscox in an amount sufficient t0 punish and t0 make an example 0f Hiscox and t0 deter similar conduct in the future.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach 0f Contract — Plaintiffs’ Claim Against Pioneer)
39. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 above.
40. In issuing the Pioneer Policy, Pioneer promised to provide insurance coverage,
including coverage for all insureds — including the Named Insured, Insured Organizations, and all Insured Persons as defined in the Pioneer Policy — in the event 0f a covered claim as defined Within the Pioneer Policy. At all times relevant to this action, the Pioneer Policy was in full force and effect.
41. Plaintiffs qualify as insureds under the Pioneer Policy. T0 the extent not waived 0r otherwise excused because of the acts and conduct of Pioneer, Plaintiffs have complied with all terms and conditions precedent in the Pioneer Policy. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to all benefits 0f insurance provided by the Pioneer Policy.
42. Pioneer had and has a duty under the Pioneer Policy, the law, and insurance industry custom and practice to pay defense fees and costs in connection With the Actions.

Posted by Looed on the 14th June :-

Pt.5
29. As a direct and proximate result 0f Hiscox’s contractual breaches, Mr. Hope has
sustained damages in an amount t0 be determined according t0 proof, plus interest at the legal rate. Mr. Hope continues t0 suffer damages because 0f Hiscox’s contractual breaches and will seek leave to amend this complaint once he ascertains the full extent of his damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Implied Covenant 0f Good Faith and Fair Dealing —
Mr. Hope’s Claim Against Hiscox)
30. Mr. Hope realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 and 23
through 28 above.
31. Implied in the Hiscox Policy is a covenant that Hiscox would act in good faith and
deal fairly With Mr. Hope, would d0 nothing t0 interfere With the right 0f Mr. Hope t0 receive benefits due under the policy, and would give at least the same level 0f consideration t0 Mr. Hope’s interests as it gave t0 its own interests.
b. failing and refusing t0 reimburse Mr. Hope under the terms of the Hiscox Policy for defense costs incurred in the Actions;
c. failing and refusing to provide coverage under the Hiscox Policy until Mr. Hope requested indemnity from FRC for the Actions (Which were initiated by FRC) despite the fact that Hicsox had n0 evidence that indemnity was owed by FRC or that FRC would stand behind any indemnity that was owed by it;
d. Withholding proceeds owed under the Hiscox Policy;
e. failing t0 promptly, fully, and thoroughly investigate Mr. Hope’s claim for
coverage for the Actions;
f. failing to give at least as much consideration t0 Mr. Hope’s interests as it
gave its own interests; and
g. otherwise acting as alleged above, all in breach 0f its duties under the Hiscox
Policy.
h. refusing to affirm or deny coverage within a reasonable time;
j. taking a coverage position that is contrary t0 Mr. Hope’s reasonable expectations 0f coverage; giving greater consideration t0 its own interests than it gave Mr. Hope’s interests;
k. based 0n information and belief, failing t0 have appropriate claims handling guidelines and failing t0 consider and act in accord With the governing legal requirements; and
1. otherwise acting as alleged above.
34. In breach 0fthe implied covenant 0f good faith and fair dealing, Hiscox did the things
and committed the acts alleged above for the purpose 0f consciously withholding from Mr. Hope the rights and benefits to which he was and is entitled under the Hiscox Policy and California law.
35. Hiscox’s acts are inconsistent with the reasonable expectations 0f Mr. Hope, are contrary t0 established insurance industry custom and practice, are contrary t0 legal requirements, are contrary to the express terms of the Hiscox Policy, and constitute bad faith.

Posted by Looed on the 14th June :-

Pt.4
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach 0f Contract —Mr. Hope’s Claim Against Hiscox)
22. Mr. Hope realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 above.
23. In issuing the Hiscox Policy, Hiscox promised to provide insurance coverage for
directors 0f FRC in the event 0f a covered claim as defined Within the Hiscox Policy. At all times relevant to this action, the Hiscox Policy was in full force and effect.
24. Mr. Hope was sued in the Actions in his capacity as director for FRC for alleged actions for Which he is entitled to coverage under the Hiscox Policy. Mr. Hope has incurred and continues t0 incur substantial defense costs in defense 0f the Actions.
25. T0 the extent not waived 0r otherwise excused because of the acts and conduct 0f Hiscox, Mr. Hope has complied with all terms and conditions precedent in the Hiscox Policy. Therefore, Mr. Hope is entitled to all benefits 0f insurance provided by the Hiscox Policy.
26. Hiscox had and has a duty under the Hiscox Policy, the law, and insurance industry custom and practice to pay defense fees and costs incurred by Mr. Hope in connection with the Actions.
27. Hiscox also had a duty under the Hiscox Policy, the law, and insurance industry custom and practice t0 promptly conduct a full and thorough investigation, including all bases that might support Mr. Hope’s claim for coverage for the Actions. Hiscox also had a duty t0 give at least as much consideration t0 Mr. Hope’s interests as it gave t0 its own interests in assessing coverage for the Actions.
28. Hiscox has breached the Hiscox Policy by, among other things
a. wrongfully denying Mr. Hope benefits owed under the Hiscox Policy;b. failing and refusing t0 reimburse Mr. Hope under the terms of the Hiscox Policy for defense costs incurred in the Actions;
c. failing and refusing to provide coverage under the Hiscox Policy until Mr. Hope requested indemnity from FRC for the Actions (Which were initiated by FRC) despite the fact that Hicsox had n0 evidence that indemnity was owed by FRC or that FRC would stand behind any indemnity that was owed by it;
d. Withholding proceeds owed under the Hiscox Policy;
e. failing t0 promptly, fully, and thoroughly investigate Mr. Hope’s claim for
coverage for the Actions;
f. failing to give at least as much consideration t0 Mr. Hope’s interests as it
gave its own interests; and
g. otherwise acting as alleged above, all in breach 0f its duties under the Hiscox
Policy.

Posted by Looed on the 14th June :-

Pt.3

15. Five days later, on January 30, 2019, Pioneer acknowledged coverage for part 0f the Cayman Action.
16. On April 14, 2019, after dismissal of the Cayman Action, FRC and Frontera International Corporation (“FIC”) filed a substantially similar lawsuit in the United States District Court in the Northern District 0f California titled Frontera Resources Corporation v. Stephen Hope, Case No. 4: 19-CV-01996-DMR (N.D. Cal. 2019) (the “California Action”) against Mr. Hope, Outrider Management, and Outrider Onshore alleging that Mr. Hope — as a director for FRC — breached his fiduciary duties t0 FRC for the benefit 0f himself, Outrider Management, and Outrider Onshore. This lawsuit remains pending. A true and correct copy 0f the April 14, 2019, complaint in the California Action is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by reference.
17. Mr. Hope, Outrider Management, and Outrider Onshore timely reported the California Action t0 both Hiscox and Pioneer and sought coverage, respectively, under the Hiscox Policy and the Pioneer Policy.
18. In June 2019, after reviewing $941,224.33 in invoices that had been submitted for payment, Pioneer insisted on a biased allocation of the defense fees and costs claimed as of that point. Under the allocation unilaterally imposed by Pioneer, Pioneer asserted that Plaintiffs are not entitled to any insurance proceeds from Pioneer, despite Plaintiffs having a covered claim and incurring substantial defense fees and costs. Essentially, Pioneer’s biased allocation required Hiscox to pay 71.25% of the defense costs — leaving Pioneer to pay only 28.75% of defense costs. Conveniently, this allocation would have left nothing for Pioneer to pay after the applicable self- insured retentions and/or deductibles asserted by Pioneer. Plaintiffs continue t0 challenge Pioneer’s wrongful position, with n0 avail.
19. Plaintiffs were forced t0 engage coverage counsel t0 assist in recovering the insurance proceeds wrongfully denied and withheld by Hiscox and Pioneer.
20. Through the efforts 0f counsel, Plaintiffs were able t0 convince Hiscox that it its initial denial of coverage was incorrect. By letter, dated December 18, 2019, Hiscox acknowledged that unless FRC provided Mr. Hope indemnity by January 7, 2020, Hiscox would reimburse Mr. Hope for defense fees and costs incurred in connection with the Cayman Action and the California Action.

Posted by Looed on the 14th June :-

Pt.2

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9. In June 2017, Outrider Management obtained a Private Investment Fund
Management & Professional Liability Insurance Policy, Policy No. DFS-0000018-03 for the June 22, 2017 to June 22, 2020 policy period (the “Pioneer Policy”), from Pioneer that provided coverage for Mr. Hope, Outrider Management, OMF, and Outrider Onshore for any actual 0r alleged breach of duty, neglect, error, misstatement, misleading statement, omission or act. A true and correct copy 0f the Pioneer Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
10. In July 2018, FRC obtained an Advanced Board Company Protection Insurance Policy from Hiscox, Policy N0. B1636N1 81678 for the July 13, 2018 t0 July 13, 2019 policy period (the “Hiscox Policy”), that provided coverage for FRC’S directors, such as Mr. Hope, for any actual or alleged act, error, omission, misstatement, misleading statement, neglect 0r breach 0f duty. A true and correct copy 0f the Hiscox Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
11. On 0r about November 19, 2018, FRC filed a Statement 0f Claim in the Cayman Islands titled Frontera Resources Corporation v. Stephen Hope, FSD 193 of 2018 (Grand Court 0f the Cayman Islands, Financial Services Division) (the “Cayman Action”) against Mr. Hope and OMF alleging, among other Violations, breaches 0f fiduciary duty owed t0 FRC in Mr. Hope’s capacity as director 0f FRC. A true and correct copy 0f the November 19, 2018, Statement of Claim in the Cayman Action is attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference.
12. Mr. Hope and OMF timely reported the Cayman Action to both Hiscox and Pioneer and sought coverage, respectively, under the Hiscox Policy and the Pioneer Policy.
13. In December 2018, the court in the Cayman Action conducted a hearing and by an order dated January 22, 2019, discharged the proceedings against Mr. Hope and OMF.
14. In a letter dated January 25, 2019, Hiscox initially denied any coverage for the Cayman Action. Among other things, Hiscox made the unsupported assertion
that Mr. Hope was not owed any insurance proceeds by Hiscox because FRC owed Mr. Hope indemnity for the Cayman Action. Hiscox took this position Without any evidence that FRC actually owed Mr. Hope indemnity for the Cayman Action.

Posted by Looed on the 14th June :-

Pt.1

These document are from the SanMateo Superior Court website. I am not sure if I can get them all for free or if there is any kind of limit so I will start with what look like the main ones - it might take a while to do each one (Anything in brackets is mine)

1 COMPLAINT (Filed 18/2/20)Shaun H. Crosner (SBN 259065) scrosner@pasichllp.com Jacquelyn Mohr (SBN 278337) JMohr@pasichllp.com
PASICH LLP
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 690
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Telephone: (424) 3 13-7860 Facsimile: (424) 313-7890
UN By
2/1 8/2020
[5: REF! Egmiflg iputy Clark
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Electronically
by Eu perinr Cnurt nfCaliFumia, County {rfSan Maten
EASICHL.
NNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH
\OWQQUl-RMNH
Plaintiffs Stephen Hope, Outrider Master Fund, L.P. (“OMF”), Outrider Management, LLC (“Outrider Management”), and Outrider Onshore, LP (“Outrider Onshore”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) complain and hereby allege as follows:
1. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit against Defendants Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London subscribing t0 Policy N0. B1636N1 81678 (“Hiscox”) and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London subscribing to Policy No. DFS-0000018-03’s (“Pioneer”) (collectively, “Defendants”) to collect promised coverage under a pair 0f liability insurance policies issued by Defendants. This lawsuit stems from Defendants’ wrongful refusal t0 provide full policy benefits under these policies for defense costs incurred by Plaintiffs in two underlying lawsuits filed by Frontera Resources Corporation (“FRC”). Despite Defendants’ obligation t0 reimburse Plaintiffs for all defense fees and costs incurred t0 defend covered claims (subject t0 any applicable self—insured retentions 0r deductibles), neither Defendant has paid Plaintiffs a single dollar in connection With the FRC actions t0 date. Specifically, though Plaintiffs timely notified Defendants 0f the covered lawsuits, instead 0f honoring their respective obligations under the policies and the law, Defendants performed self- serving, perfunctory investigations into Plaintiffs’ claims, and have failed to reimburse Plaintiffs for the substantial fees and costs they have incurred in connection With the FRC actions. As shown below, Defendants’ position is contrary t0 the respective policies they issued, the law, insurance industry custom and practice, and the facts. Therefore, Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit t0 obtain the benefits due under the policy and for other damages.

(will exclude the info on Parties unless anyone wants to see)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Madpunter

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Latest Share Chat

Member Info for Madpunter

Followers

Following

Posts (Last 30 Days)

Posts (All Time)

Last Post

Member Since

Share Chat Post Distribution (Last 30 Days)

Activity Log (Last 30 Days)

Please enter at least 2 characters

No results found

Search results

Recently viewed

Trending