ODR, you sound a tad defensive. Liquidators may or may not have been looking on here, but that's beside the point. The company sent a message through Looed that was shared on here and a poster then sent it to the liquidators asking them to confirm the contents. Like poking the bear. Of course, they then took issue with the content, which caused the company to lose a bit of credibility in terms of its intended messaging. So my point was simply that I suspect the company won't be sharing anything further via that route as a result. Not that any super secret or not for public consumption information that the liquidators wouldn't otherwise have access to was shared.
Be that as it may, you are right not to share publicly the info provided you by the liquidators under the stated conditions.
Coming down the home stretch! Won't be long now.
Article about ex President Saakashvilli.
https://theins.ru/en/politics/269945
I hope not as well, but that is my fear. We shall see.
I doubt there will ever be another update from the company via Looed on this site after a poster took the exact words and sent them to the liquidators.
Agreed. The "our leader fights for us" schtick sounds an awful lot like RR's cheerleading for ZM back in the day.
BLOE market cap is £8.24m. A good reminder that 2C resource estimates =/= proven/probable reserves.
I believe 2010/11. Didn't they say in the few months before delisting that they had signed an NDA with a major to look at data? IRRC that one was stated or rumored to be BP.
Exxon has looked at the data at least 1/2 times in the past and took a pass. Seems like it would take some new information to bring them to the table for Block XII.
Interesting, Looed. This means that other entities named "Frontera Resources Corporation" have been created outside of the original structure as set out in the arbitration document and the AIM listing document. On what basis would the directors of an entity outside of the corporate structure of FRC-C have standing to engage with the liquidators of FRC-C, other than as former directors responding to inquiries by the duly appointed liquidators?
There is nothing illegal about reaching out to the liquidators, despite veiled threats mentioned by Looed's source a couple weeks ago. It was probably unwise, however, as I'm sure it will have a chilling effect on the source and there will likely be no further messages passed on. That said, the messages didn't contain anything of substance, just assurances that the company was working hard to put all the legal issues behind them and that they were working on behalf of all stakeholders. No concrete evidence of that was ever seen beyond what could be gleaned from various court records. And some of that, like the settlement with Mourant, was illusory since it was all thrown out the window and resulted in the winding up order.
Truth is, no one really knows what's going on entirely except SN, who is no longer in control of the company. This has historically been a schizophrenic company. They failed to show up at arguably the most consequential hearing in the company's history, the arbitration, and lost on almost all issues. Then they fought like the dickens to save the company from being stolen by ZM's machinations. Then let the company go into liquidation without challenge. Is it all part of a master plan?
Could provide useful info, but take any signed directors' statements with a degree of caution. After all, ZM and SN signed solvency statements for FIC and FRCC shortly before they were put into liquidation back in the days before ZM's dramatic exposure.
Best idea on this board in years! Excellent red wines.
@Montiburns -- good reminder on how Hope came into his ownership of the CLNs, at cents on the dollar. Nevertheless, as I've said before, while he is definitely a vulture, he kind of gets a bum rap on this Board. He brought a deal to the company that got shot down by SN/ZM because they would have lost control that would have given most retail shareholders a return on their investment rather than being stuck with unlisted shares. According to emails produced in the Cayman fiduciary case, he consistently pointed out issues with financing and governance, messages that were not appreciated by SN/ZM, and which issues led to Andy Szecila resigning from the Board. He was pilloried for acting against the interests of the company by not allowing certain financing options that would have been senior to his position, but as he pointed out to ZM, the money could have been put in as equity. Of course this was also in the same period that ZM was actively plotting to defraud everyone with the secret Green deal, the facts of which only came to light much later.
Whatever deal was made to end that litigation in California, IMO he has a role to play in the ownership going forward.
From the arbitration document:
"On 24 April 2019, Respondent 1 [Frontera Resources Georgia Corporation] wrote to the Tribunal informing them that on 13 April 2019 it had assigned all of its rights under the PSC to FRUS [ Respondent 2], a limited liability company incorporated in Texas, USA, and wholly-owned subsidiary of FRC, Respondent 1’s parent company (the "Purported
Assignment")."
"Respondent 1 is indirectly and wholly-owned by Frontera Resources Corporation ("FRC"), through Frontera International Corporation ("FIC") and Frontera Resources Caucasus Corporation ("FRCC"), and Respondent 2 is directly and wholly-owned by FRC."
So when FRUS is mentioned in reference to the MOU or possible recipient of a new license, it's the FRUS LLC that is in Texas and that has as directors SN, Tyler Nelson and Luis Giusti. At the time of the arbitration it was a direct wholly owned subsidiary of FRC, i.e., the company now being wound up in Cayman.
What you laid out is my belief though I don't believe SN is working against shareholder interests. Looed or Slade messages from company indicated what they are doing will either work for all or for none.
The choices are:
1. The prospective new license resides in FRC (via FRUS as a subsidiary). It cannot be "redeemed" without paying the Georgians 4 or 5 million dollars. Don't recall exact amount. Creditors are owed unknown millions. Between Mourant and YA alone is about $5 million. Who knows how many other creditors are out there? The company has no money to satisfy any of these amounts. No new money wants to come in having to pay off the creditors AND the Georgians to get this out of hock. Therefore, if left within FRC, the new license is never awarded and no one gets anything.
2. The prospective new license resides in FRUS as an independent company. Any new investment coming in only has to pay the Georgians to get the license awarded. The rest can be for drilling and exploration, not creditors. Old shareholders have to trust SN and the owners of FRUS to issue shares to give them a stake in the new venture. Any new investment will get the bulk of the equity ownership, but at least old shareholders will have something. This way they can also choose to exclude bad actors like ZM. I'm guessing Hope will have a large stake as well.
@Phil_2018 -- you can't find out the owners of FRUS from public filings, but the directors are same as FRC--SN, Tyler Nelson and Luis Giusti.
I think he was alluding to the company, not Looed.
I suppose the liquidators now have to decide whether to pursue this on behalf of the FRC estate. I'm guessing they don't.
Agree with tsbs1. Five years ago after the delisting, the shareholders could have claimed against the company and directors, even the Nomad, in the UK for false and misleading public statements. As an AIM regulated company they had certain disclosure obligations, and the Nomad had an obligation to ensure those were met. In fact there was a poster Starrage who claimed he had sued and gotten a settlement from the Nomad.
Good luck collecting on any judgment though. The company had no assets in the UK, and any judgement would have faced the same difficulties collecting as YA and Mourant, who are still trying to get their money 5 years later. That claim is surely time barred now; at the time many counseled that going after the company would only damage its prospects and others calculated that a suit would only mean lots of legal fees with little hope of a return. Fast forward to now and its hard to come up with a cause of action against the company. They have no legal duty of disclosure of anything as a non-regulated company. They are not taking anyone's money now and seeking to defraud them, rather they seem to be trying to somehow have a future in Georgia. Hopefully they take old shareholders along for the ride.