Member Info for OneDayRodney1

Keysersoze: Three have left. We were aware of Kalandarishvili and Levan Paitchadze (also in Finance) on the 29th. But now you have spotted that Mshvidobadze also left last month but clearly took a little while to update his LinkedIn profile.

I emailed them both on the 29th when it was first posted that Kalandarishvili had left. At that point LinkedIn said that Mshvidobadze was still in post. So his leaving is new news.
I then emailed them both again on Monday as I hadn't received any replies. I still haven't received any replies.
So now the whole Finance team (that we know of) has left, all at the same time. On the face of it this appears greatly concerning but we just don't know.
I guess the next step is to ring them!?

StarRage: I viewed that article as positive!
So, you're right, no-one would believe you ;-).

Thanks StarRage. Perhaps if one of you is on Facebook you could reach out to her?

If the article is to be believed then the arbitration was to have been settled by now, but how we verify that is the challenge...

The newspaper will probably only write an article if they haven't been paid. They won't be interested if they have.

Maybe a premium member could private message Arigarosa and ask him for an update?
GLAxo

Oopsi: you up for the job?
Probably won't get paid but could maybe find out some info!

So we started this second action against Hope for $56m, having pulled out of the first one in the Caymans. Now we are wanting out of this one. In both cases we saw little evidence to support our claim. Despite the fact that we all know Hope has operated in purely his own interest, he seems to have been careful to avoid leaving written evidence of such.
What was the point of all this? What has it achieved at great expense?

If agreement has now been reached then hopefully we will find out somehow. GOGC might decide to post an update... But, as far as I can see, the arbitration body doesn't rush to post outcomes, if at all ...
GLAring

And 'good morning' to you Jester .... FFS!

StarRage just answered a question SteveV posted this morning. So there maybe nothing more to it than that...
The 5 November date came from the Georgian article that we were randomly made aware of last week. From memory the article stated that there would be an agreement by 5 November, one of the 5 points of which was repayment of the VAT we are entitled to.
It would surprise me if firstly, that payment happened swiftly and secondly, if we hear anything about it. Bwtfdik! Just guessing as always!
GLAmourous

StarRage: he did offer the loan but he would obviously have preferred the term sheet loan. Your suggestion, whilst not impossible, does seem extremely unlikely and, is really quite negative speculation.

StarRage: but selling shares wouldn't have helped the Company. The loan would have done.

There was more than enough speculation at the time as to who the sellers could have been and one or two mentioned Zaza and Steve as possibilities, but the whole nature of the selling and the constant cancelling of trades strongly implied it was to keep the sp low.
It was not in Zaza and Steve's interests for this to happen for a whole host of reasons, including the fact that it made fund raising considerably more challenging.
Whoever the sellers were, they were clearly working against the interests of Frontera. For that reason I cannot see it as having been ZM and SN.

StarRage: I think if the potential financier had found that ZM and SN were selling their shares they would have pulled out of the potential deal.
How do you know they were short of cash?

StarRage: we signed the term sheet for the $60m loan on 11 December. Had this gone to fruition then we would have repaid the whole Outrider loan. It seems highly unlikely that having secured the term sheet that ZM and SN would then start to sell their shares knowing that that action in itself would jeopardise the funding.
In my opinion they were taken by surprised by Cairn's resignation and the delist.
But we do not know who the seller(s) was/were.

Many thanks regdik

Thank you StarRage.
It talks about the mortgaged property being shares. Whether this means the asset transfer is permissible or not under the agreement is beyond me; maybe someone with a legal bent could give their opinion?
I'm a bit surprised if we haven't discussed this before?
GLAre

Thank you StarRage. Do you know where it defines what the 'mortgaged property' is?