Member Info for OneDayRodney1

You were banging on a good few months ago that you didn't expect any news until late 2020. May I ask what led you to that conclusion/opinion?

Chris: the subsequent dropping of the reforms by the Georgian Govt won't have helped this I am sure.

Hear hear Prodigy! It's bad enough refreshing the screen to see it is another green box, without then refreshing to see a reply to the aforementioned green box ;).

Taffy: many thanks for posting.
We didn't see all of Steve's defence a day or two back; are you able to access that?
I am guessing it might be identical to this one?

Didn't realise that Devex was another one of those: 'I have been invested in Frontera for seven years' fly by night posters who appear periodically ;).
Joking aside, thanks for pasting across sonnyclimes ... Retireby40 we miss you!

Free: extract from last audited GOGC statutory accounts:

" Legal fees relate to legal services received from Hogan Lovells International LLP based on the
agreement between the Company and Hogan Lovells International LLP dated 6 November 2017,
with respect to legal case initiated by Frontera Resources Georgian Corporation (note 26(b)). "

Note 26(b) relates to Frontera's counterclaim, as part of the arbitration.

StarRage: re the arbitration: I posted a reply on here I received from GOGC last week that said "the arbitration proceedings are currently in progress." My guess is that if they had been adjourned, they would have probably said so.

StarRage: how could they not include existing shareholders in any new listing (your 14.24 post)?

I know this will make draw scorn from some posters but I do wish folks would lay off abusing StarRage. This is a discussion forum and in my opinion it is better to be aware of the facts relating to matters. Speculation is fine and making it and reading it helps me get through the day, especially when I am so desperately wanting this to come good. But when someone makes a contrary point, especially from a standpoint of knowledge (which StarRage has), then that is valuable to the debate.
Fingers crossed we are nearing a light at the end of this long dark tunnel for us all.

Seingred: surely SN's response could have been to hand over the shares? Which presumably he would do if he didn't think we had a future. But no, he is not doing that ... So clearly he wants to keep them.

Think there may be a little confusion over lawyers. My understanding is that we need lawyers in California to represent FRR. This case is against Steve personally and he will have no problems finding legal representation.
GLAss

Absolutely Goit. He clearly believes they are worth fighting for ... which is good news :).
GLAdes

Kempey: after the delist shares were not entitled to remain in ISAs and some holders, myself included, were sent share certificates by FRR for the ISA holdings. Then they stopped sending them out; but no-one knew why so it led to some concern at the time.
Glastonbury

Jippyjazz: I thought Flybe shareholders have been offered 1p per share ... and do they not have to vote on the deal?
Apologies to Flybe holders here if I am incorrect as I am only invested here so don't hold other shares. But the point I am making is that we are the owners of the Company and, therefore, its assets.

Ok; apologies.

Arsenal: we ought to caveat that with the fact that we have only heard that from a Zaza quote ...
GLAdioli

This rollercoaster of a Board has taken a dip down today again it seems.
For me there are constant ups and downs but there are two facts that underlie everything: Zaza is a selfish determined successful b*gger and he is not likely to forego his investment, and potential massive windfall, without giving every last effort to keep it.
Yes, employees aren't being paid, yes, we are being treated appallingly, but that is a symptom of his blind determination: win at all costs.
And if he does win, we win.
GLAlths

'Of ongoing arbitration' doh!

Good morning all
I contacted GOGC a while ago asking for an update on the arbitration process and have just received this reply:
"In respect of confidentiality provisions of the Production Sharing Contract and Refinery Study (“PSC”) dated June 25, 1997, and the expectation of confidentiality in the arbitration process, we do not consider it appropriate to comment further on what is fundamentally a commercial dispute that is the subject of adjudication. Commenting publicly would not only be disrespectful to the arbitral tribunal, but may also potentially constitute a breach of contract.
Please be advised in this regard that the arbitration proceedings are currently in progress."

Which pretty much confirms what we already knew ... but good to get it from GOGC rather than a Zaza quote!
GLAndular

Thanks Kippermanbike; I stand (or rather sit) corrected.
Apologies.