Member Info for OneDayRodney1

Good morning Dulwichman

Thank you for your reply, just to add context to your rhetoric: the sixth US state signed a free trade agreement with the UK in September last year (three and a half years after Brexit). No more since. There are fifty US states. So that leaves 44 without the promised free trade agreement. So, as you aptly say: "never let the truth get in the way of a good story".

It would be good news if this happened.

We were assured by Johnson that the UK would have a free trade agreement with the USA as soon as Brexit was done ... but that was another of his ... hmmm ... well I guess I can't use the "l" word as it could be construed as slander.

GLA

Monti: you say that your view of the reason that SN allowed the liquidation to go through was that he was the largest creditor. Well, of course we are all speculating here, but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary then it is reasonable to assume that SN has stumped up the legal fees, and so would be a very large creditor.

But, if that was the case, then surely that is a reason not to let the liquidation to go through as he will lose far more personally than what he saves the Company in terms of the other creditors having to accept cents in the dollar?

"All I see are myriad pointless questions of people who cannot possibly have the answers".

No memory then gotreal. You have my sympathy. Good luck.

Gotreal: unlike you it seems, I have been actively trying to find information for many years and have always shared what I have found on here. Without such research and sharing, you would have nothing to come here and criticise.

Monti: without wanting to go down the road of comparing willy sizes, my "investment" in FRR is ridiculously massive, but I don't feel that makes me want to see a return any more than someone with a small investment, as what may be a lot of money to one person is a small amount to another.

More pertinently, as a shareholder, I am desperate to see a return on my investment here. I bought my first share at 19p decades ago. I posted on the ii board for years before it was shut down and I then started posting on here. I have always tried to look at the Company's statements as true as that is my mantra: I always tend to trust people until they prove me wrong. I attended presentations in London and, like most, was taken in by Zaza. He let us down (understatement!).

Now we have been fed occasional morsels of information via Looed (I have stated my immense admiration and gratitude to Looed many times on here). Neither Looed or me or anyone knows whether we are being strung a yarn, but the latest one said they were speaking to the liquidators. So this struck me as something that maybe could be independently verified. Yes, it was probably naive to expect a confirmation or otherwise, but my motives were clear and, hopefully, understandable.

You, and some others, have suggested this may cause the flow of communication to cease. Looed didn't say that he had the same concerns, which isn't surprising as they are ... well, how can I put it best, ridiculous. I asked the liquidators whether they concurred with a statement that is in the public domain. Nothing more.

Now please get off my effing back and direct your ire at the ex-Directors to tell us what they're doing, and have done, with all our investments, without yet more years of constantly telling us that we will know "very soon".

Ziggy: thank you for explaining your thinking.

Can I just say that anybody who thinks that the liquidators are unaware of what is discussed on here are naive too. As if me passing on the ex-directors statement to the liquidators is the sharing of a secret and could mean that the line of communication via Looed is stopped is laughable.

Remember that we are all equally keen to know wtf is happening to our investment. The reason we don't know is that the ex-Directors aren't telling us. What we do know is the Company that we are invested in is in liquidation.

And some of you think that me asking a simple question of the Liquidators is ill-advised!

So I asked them to clarify a statement in the public domain. Why is that illegal?

And trying to get independent confirmation of what we are being told. Why is that not very wise?

I emailed the liquidators with the following question:

"My question please is as follows:

The former directors of FRC have issued a statement to many of the shareholders today as below:

"We are working closely with Deloitte to return the company to the pre-windup status quo for the benefit of all stakeholders, and we are advancing a joint formal plan in this regard.

As this unfolds, more info will become available. We are grateful for the positive and professional, collaborative relationship we’ve established with Deloitte"

Can you please confirm if indeed this is the case?"

I have just received the following reply:

"The Liquidators are not in a position to comment on the statement you have provided. Please be aware however, that as set out in the Liquidators’ notice to shareholders (Frontera Resources Corporation - in Official Liquidation | Deloitte Cayman Islands), the directors have no authority or power to act in relation to the Company, and therefore any statements, other than what is found at that link, are not made on behalf of the Company."

Hmmm ...

Lightstep?

If they want the pre-windup status quo then why let it be wound up in the first place? Currently they have lost the Company. Deloitte says it has no assets. So why want to return it to pre-windup? Deloitte are laughing all the way to the bank as liquidators normally do. This all seems completely nonsensical.

Bezzy: The Deloitte statement is clearly genuine yes, but please show me where it confirms what we've been told by the Company, ie that they're working with the (now removed) Directors on a plan to un-liquidate FRC?

Apologies if I have missed it.

And they've obviously released the statement to Looed as they realised they were going to have a lot of bleating on here from us lot having seen the Deloitte statement.

It seems to me we are being treated like low life, being thrown the occasional morsel at appropriate times to try to stop us from revolting.

Thank you for sharing this Looed.

My initial reaction was "good". However, on reflection, albeit brief, it seems to throw up more questions than answers:

1. As Monti has eloquently posed already: Why let it be liquidated in the first place?

2. Why didn't they tell us this immediately after the liquidation?

3. Is this just more costs (paying Deloitte etc)?

4. Is SN just stringing us along?

It just doesn't make sense.

And one thing that seems pretty certain is that those who were hoping for a quick outcome of this sorry saga will be sadly disappointed, as this could take many many months.

Anyway, the first thing that should be done is to get Deloitte to confirm the statement is true. That will answer number 4. I will be writing to them today.

Thank you for sharing Looed.

My guess is that Deloitte will probably drop this case now as they won't want to incur any costs as they certainly won't be spending their monies. They will be doing their best to find something of value to cover their fees. Bwtfdik.

Just a word on recent chatter on here. It seems to have thankfully drifted into calmer waters, which I hope is the case so that Looed (especially) can be given a few days well deserved break from feeling he has to post on here. Mind you if the Company updates him then I withdraw my suggestion! Have a good weekend all.

Tenners: I fully understand your frustrations and the rationale behind what you are doing.

But I would say that the Company have, via Looed, done exactly what you have asked in your last post, in that they have reassured us that we are part of the future (whether that proves to be the case we will find out sometime). What I don't understand is why they can't actually explain how. There may be good reason I guess...

Bigun: there are many shares not held by brokers in nominee accounts. The bulk or my holding is in a nominee account but those that were in my ISA account were not held in a nominee account and so when they were chucked out of the ISA on delist, I was sent a paper share certificate by Frontera.

What Frontera should hold is a share register of all the holdings in FRC, although that will be with the liquidator now.

Thank you for the clarification Looed; apologies I missed it originally.

Good post Monti. You're correct about the practicalities of what will happen with the liquidation process.

One question that Looed was asked, which I don't think he/she replied to (sorry if I missed it), is whether the last brief message was in response to cajoling from Looed or not. If the latter, then it would signal that someone at the Company reads this board.

Either way, what we really require from the Company is a clear statement explaining how we still have a partial ownership of the asset.

Ricardo you are correct, no-one has blamed Looed.

But I see that some have again raised questions about him/her. We have been here before and for me matters were put to rest and the vast majority concluded that Looed is trustworthy and most of us are immensely grateful, not only for him obtaining and sharing the communications, but also for his tireless sharing of his in-depth knowledge of the court cases (which just shows how hard he works on all our behalf). Yet again I say "thank you".