Member Info for Njames

SN has been officially served as of 13 May by affixing a copy of the lawsuit to his front door. He has 3-4 weeks to file an answer, which will probably be a perfunctory general denial like the other defendants. Will be interested in the results of discovery and his detailed answer to the suit in coming months.

For anyone interested ...

https://www.cclerk.hctx.net/Applications/WebSearch/CourtSearch.aspx?CaseType=Probate

Enter Nicandros as the party and hit Search.

Can view the list of documents filed in the case, but to view the actual documents need to register on the site.

Best keep your day job, Life. Poetry is hard.

That would probably truly be a case of fighting over an empty box! :)

I notice that the order mistakenly states SN name as Steve Nicandros Elliot a couple times. Wonder if that's an error that SN can challenge and make them repeat the process and cause more delay? I believe the original petition correctly states his name. I guess if he challenges he has effectively made an appearance in the lawsuit and submits to the court's jurisdiction.

Hearing on substituted service in the probate case 10:00 am Houston time today. Wonder if SN attorneys will make an appearance.

Means our very own SaNta is bringing us back, even though he can't pay his credit card bills and spent the family trust on the not-empty box, eh Life?

@Mapp -- he still lives on this board by another pseudonym.

Fighting with what army? How will he pay? Same website where the sister's lawsuit is filed shows two lawsuits by bill collectors for charged off credit card debt, filed March 2025.

Yes no doubt we will see the same dilatory tactics as used by SN in other litigation. Avoiding service, disputing every possible procedural point, not paying lawyers and forcing delays to appoint new lawyers, etc.

Per AI --

In Texas, fiduciary duty represents the highest standard of trust and confidence under the law. It requires one party (the fiduciary) to act in the best interests of another party (the principal). This duty encompasses several obligations, including:

- Loyalty and Good Faith: Acting with utmost loyalty and fairness toward the principal.

- Full Disclosure: Providing all important information related to transactions or decisions.

- Avoiding Self-Dealing: Refraining from actions that benefit the fiduciary at the expense of the principal.

- Fair and Honest Dealing: Ensuring transparency and integrity in all interactions.

Fiduciary relationships can arise formally, such as between trustees and beneficiaries, or informally, like in family relationships where trust and reliance are significant. Breaches of fiduciary duty can lead to serious legal consequences, including monetary damages and equitable remedies.

Would be interested in others opinions, and of course at this point we just have one side of the story, but it seems SN may be in some legal jeopardy. Even if he technically had the power to direct the investment and use of funds in the trust, he had a fiduciary duty to other beneficiaries to manage it prudently. The fiduciary standard is a very high one, much greater than an ordinary duty of care. If you look at the filings, the agreement governing its initial establishment lists all the investments, which are at a glance solid, blue-chip stocks, bonds and government securities. To go from that to highly speculative investment like Frontera seems awfully imprudent and not the type of behavior expected of a fiduciary. HIs defense will have to be something like the sister was informed and approved and is lying. Otherwise I think he's cooked.

Just as the Cayman and ZM court proceedings revealed a lot about the inner workings of the Company that was kept hidden from us, so this case as it moves forward will as well, I expect. Will the defendants turn on each other, Kanaly saying SN misled them to get approval to use the funds, for example? What will turn up in discovery? Possibly Steve directed small amounts at first thinking Frontera would hit it big and then it would benefit the sister and the trust, but ultimately ended up draining practically the entire $17 million to keep it afloat so many years. Grab your popcorn, sit back and watch.

Shocking indeed. Not surprised CSTN funds were used to fund Frontera for SN's benefit. But hiding the mother's death from the sister is an incredible, if somewhat unbelievable, allegation.

@Phil:

"They then tore themselves apart with infighting and ruined the company by not paying Creditors on time amounting to lots of pointless court cases. Why they got so concerned over the Hope loaning them money for a larger share of the company thing I don't know when the company only had a few years left to get the oil out anyway, ridiculous. If we went along with Hope we might have gotten some money back for our shares after least."

-->Your ego is not your amigo. And SN's was battleship sized.

" . . I would say the company has been mismanaged."

-->Understatement.

Phil,

1. If you're an oil and gas investor, consider whether there might be other global opportunities for your money that are less risky both geopolitically and geologically than eastern Georgia. Many companies are successfully exploiting reserves in MENA, sub–Saharan Africa, North and South America, among others.

2. If you like the Georgian oil and gas sector as an investment opportunity in specific, you might take a look at Block Energy, they seem to be making a go of it and shares can be bought on AIM.

3. If your focus is on Block 12 and that's what you believe in, consider the relative advantages of pursuing it through FRUS versus getting an investor group together and submitting a tender for the Block.

a. The Frontera name is tarnished, any reentry to Georgia would require payment of the sums due from the arbitration, and SN even with all his wealth, experience and connections couldn't get a viable proposal together to get the company out of liquidation and take advantage of the MOU to revive the rights to the Block

b. Why would you or anyone who did put forth the effort to buy FRUS out of the liquidation share it with anyone who did not participate in that? You could put together a group to do that and divide the equity amongst that group.

c. Any new bidder for the Block would sign an NDA and have access to the data available to the Georgians, and would then come into possession of that data if a successful bidder. So there's no advantage from a data standpoint of trying to revive FRUS.

4. If you're just looking to get your investment back, it's not going to happen. It's gone.

Quite the opposite. Frontera owed Georgian govt and GOGC that amount for fees, costs and damages relating to the arbitration. Payment of that amount was a prerequisite to the effectiveness of the now-defunct MOU that would have given portions of the Block back to Frontera. SN was never going to pony up this amount absent an investor coming in. Since no investment was forthcoming, the amount was never paid, and here we are with no remaining asset of value.

The fact they've allowed FRUS to become dormant due to non-payment of annual dues or filing annual reports indicates to me that SN et al have no further intentions with regard to that entity.

THAT'S IT MAN, GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER!

I agree it was likely not done with ill intent, but it was certainly foolish and had the predictable (which I stated at the time) outcome of shutting off the sources you had developed at the company.