Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
At the moment it's about discrediting SN and what better way to start then a default, delist, deceit and dereliction of duty
We may be about to find out some information about outrider, possibly delisting and general corporate affairs that we didn't know before. We might not like cross but we will get a better view as shareholders. Not great that it is in a public forum
Interesting that FRR tried to rectify the position post the arbitration award about the assignment by providing finances and technicals - this is an attempt to cure the defect. I can’t see why a previous invalid assignment can’t be rectified so it subsequently meets the requirements of the PSC. The PSC specifically permits intra company assignments provided finances and technicals are satisfied
Disqualification denied
Interesting FTI joined a previous hearing. We have confirmation that FRR don't believe that FTI have the asset as part of the liquidation. Back to conflicting judgments from different courts in different countries
Absolutely Mole - you can’t ever give better than 70% prospects of success even if you think you have a slam dunk because you can’t account for the judge or how your witnesses will perform under cross. We will get a better idea during the next session as by that stage the judge will have formed a view and we will get a feel for where she is going by her tone and comments. She said she likes to give the parties a clear idea of what she is likely to order so eyes and ears peeled Foe the time being we just need to let the docs do the talking:
Mole I see the point - the alternative is that the assignment was valid and therefore FTIs actions are immaterial
The new docs just served sound very interesting
Nop - I'll wait for cross but I had a very similar case before a high court judge with a claimant who told a web of lies and got caught out by the documents. He had to walk away half way through. It's all about the documents
If I was ZM I'd want to walk away now - if I was his lawyer I'd be speaking with him.
Examination and cross on GC will be interesting. The judge at the TRO was scathing of ZM - I hope the judge has read that as it was pretty damning. Will be interesting to see if BL is called as that will be very interesting.
The idea that the assignment was for investment purposes seems implausible- cross examination on that won't be pretty.
Good news on the dismissal of the jurisdictional challenge - I'd like to see the judge's reasoning on the arbitration decision/terms of the PSC on the validity of the assignment. That was a crucial decision.
Ives done a fair few trials and they are not like LA law!! This is no different. Main thing is to come across as a credible and honest witness.
Jurisdiction challenge dismissed. Onto injunction - Steve giving evidence
ODR - I wouldn't use the Zoom link. That is for the counsel and parties. The judge kicked us all out yesterday when she found out we were on - she wasn't happy. Someone posted a live link to the stream yesterday which the public can use.
Mole - on your unbelievable point, I think that was captured when FRR counsel said this story would make for a John Grisham novel - couldn't have put it better
Freeatlast – it will add to the list of conflicting decisions but at least be one in our favour (given by a US court applying Texas law). You could use that judgment to potentially enforce in Georgia (I’m not a Georgian lawyer so don’t know how easy or feasible that would be) as well as against any action taken in Cayman (potentially). It has value. If it didn’t, ZM wouldn’t be there (especially as he has used every trick in the book to evade service in other actions against him) or would not have instructed and paid for such heavyweight litigators (with his track record it would have been a sizeable chunk of money required upfront).
Mole – I totally agree to allow GC to take the benefit of the PSC would be utterly scandalous. I don’t think that will happen tho as the proceedings taken by the GG in Georgia demonstrate. If FTI have properly scrutinised the GC transaction then I would be gobsmacked. Given what has come out, it has hard to disagree with FRR counsel that it has all the hallmarks of a fraudulent transaction.
It will be interesting later on to see where it goes and whether SN gives evidence. I think Bryce has been added to give evidence (in case there is an objection to SN and/or because he may be legally qualified to deal with issues of corporate structure/legal view of what happened in Georgia). It was particularly galling when counsel mentioned that SN had known Nicolaz (ZZs son) since he was a young man. Too many asleep at the wheel and lack of corporate governance.
The Green Capital transaction and the relationship with ZM is important but secondary at the moment. The first hurdle to overcome is the technical/jurisdictional challenges and that is why the judge adjourned the proceedings yesterday, namely to consider them. If ZM is successful on any one of these then we don’t get to GC. It’s too tight to call and the fact that Bryce has now been added and there was a little flurry of activity last night from FRR demonstrates that. The arbitration ruling is a real problem on that front and our best bet is the provision of the PSA which allows an intra company assignment without consent (subject to finances and technicals). The judge was keen to know who had the last word and if it was the GG post our May letter and they still were not happy then we are in big trouble. At the TRO the judge said the assignment was valid but it’s anybody’s guess how this will go. If we get a positive verdict on the assignment then we will be in a much better position re FTI and Cayman. If we don’t, then last chance saloon is with the GG/Georgian courts. It is telling that ZM is there and instructed heavyweights so this hearing certainly has significant legal consequences that will impact on he overall scheme of things.
Seeing ZM there made me feel sick.
Difficult to know which way this is going. Judge did have a problem with the assignment to FRUS as a result of the findings of the arbitration and at that point I thought we were struggling. Pulled it back with the clause of the PSA which allows intra company assignments without needing approval of the GG (subject to finances) and that seemed to find some favour. They then moved on to the employment contract and whether there was any breach of the restrictive covenants given the ownership structure and that wasn’t resolved. My fear is that the judge may go for the easy way out and avoid getting into the merits by finding that either the assignment was invalid or the organisational structure means there is no breach of the restrictive covenant. Very difficult to call.
Zara saying that the signature on the assignment wasn’t his tells me all I need to know.
FRRs counsel said this story will make a good john Grisham novel in the future and I have to agree.
Resumes tomorrow 10am Texas time.
The argument that FRUS didn't need the approval of the GOGC under the terms of thePSA Is finding some favour