Member Info for OneDayRodney1

Kipperman: PwC have not 'stepped in'.
They have been dragged in by the Liquidator to provide info as they are the auditors.

Madp: Having re-read it yet again I am convinced that this is all about PwC asking for all papers to be sent to its lawyers i.e. doing precisely what I stated earlier. Perhaps Oopsi could confirm or otherwise?

Madp: my reading of it is not that PwC are requesting anything other than that any papers etc are served on its lawyers and not them. They are effectively telling the court that they have representation. (Although it is written in 'legal speak' so I could have misinterpreted!)
As for the bank account, the liquidators would have had complete control of that from the moment they were appointed. That is absolutely certain.
My conclusion of this latest information is that it is further evidence of the liquidators going about their normal business; in this instance evidence of them wanting to quiz the Company's auditors PwC.

The bankers are listed in the Company accounts, which is in the public domain. As soon as the liquidators will have been appointed the bank account would have been under the liquidators control.
Pwc, as auditors, will have copies of much of the other paperwork and will know all about what was going on with the business. That will be why they have been summoned.

Or even 'monetise'....

Cheesie: you coming on here with these comments is no different in annoyance to those mindless posters who come on here to tell us we've all been shafted and have lost our investments. Both types of posts are based on no knowledge and are just annoying.

Seingred: oh, was that the reason for the delay? I must have missed that :(. Do you know where that info came from? Was it a reliable source?

Seingred: madness I know! When I first invested here (at 19p!) it was only a small punt but over the years I became convinced by the size of the resource and the potential huge return.
I viewed CHL as more risky but with the possibility of a sizeable return. It did appear that the ICSID sided unjustly with the Indonesian Government.
With our arbitration we can point at all the monies invested and the resulting MOU with Baker Hughes and NDA with BP, which would suggest, in the absence of other factors, that we should come out of the arbitration with something. However, whether the arbiters in this case are really neutral is another matter. They could be swung by pressure from the Georgian Govt, or maybe the other way by pressure from the US.
But, as you rightly say, we have absolutely no idea. Although maybe the delay from October suggests that it may not be a straightforward rejection of our claim...

Cyrox: I am always prepared to listen to contrary views when they're posted as this is a discussion board. But Bluenotred's opening remark was to call all shareholders fools so it is understandable that some folks jump on him.
GLAdioli

Have no idea why.
Apologies guys.

Seingred: I absolutely know all about the Churchill case as it's the only other share I have invested in.
Churchill were shafted but it is completely irrelevant to us as it was all about the license document and the arbiter was the ICSID.
Fortunately we have a different arbiter and there are no similarities between the claims.
Please drop this thread as it is potentially worrying fellow Fronterians unnecessarily.

Seingred: I absolutely know all about the Churchill case as it's the only other share I have invested in.
Churchill were shafted but it is completely irrelevant to us as it was all about the license document and the arbiter was the ICSID.
Fortunately we have a different arbiter and there are no similarities between the claims.
Please drop this thread as it is potentially worrying fellow Fronterians unnecessarily.

Thank you Gipps.
Agree re the arbitration.
The outcome is the key. Imo the fact that the personal guarantees have been put in place implies that Zaza and SN expect a positive outcome.
GLAd

Gipps: you say we are producing oil.
Given all the employees have now been laid off I would guess that we potentially are not producing oil any longer alas.

seingred: the Churchill Mining arbitration was COMPLETELY different to FRR's. Firstly it was about the veracity of a document. That is different. Secondly it was an application by Churchill for an annulment of a decision. That is different. Thirdly, it was before the ICSID, who turned out to be completely biased. Hopefully different!

Sounds like we are no longer looking to drop the case without prejudice..
What has induced such a change of approach?
Could it be that we have some cash coming in from somewhere????

Kempey: they can't walk away with our money as we are shareholders. If they don't delist, and personally (although knowing diddly squat), I think relisting is the most likely option and may well be a condition of any finance raising, then we would be entitled to any dividends paid and would partake of any buyout,be it full or partial.
GLA

RR: you don't half spout c a r p at times.
You know no more of Zaza's intentions than the rest of us; i.e. diddly squat.

WHamBoy: it's clearly your post that is the offensive one ;)! (Continuing the impressive offense from West Ham yesterday!)

Maybe my Dirk Diggler post was deemed offensive this time and yours went down as collateral damage again!?
Third time lucky hopefully!

Gordon Bennett, there seems to be one that appears every night: the ghosts of Christmas past... literally!
What do these people get from such postings?