Our next webinar is 27 February at 6 pm. To ask our speakers Sapan Ghai, CCO at Sovereign Metals, Will Holland, CEO at Europa Oil & Gas and Rick Guiney, CEO at MicroSalt a question please submit here.
You won't get an answer because they have no idea. They'll just throw out vague accusations they can't justify because they have no idea what's going on. I'll inject some balance here and say that was the most sensible thing anyone here has done in the last two weeks. No I can't justify that statement either because I too have no idea what's going on. But let's have more BS statements about how FRR might have hurt feelings because there's not a lot else to be gained from this clown show and I could do with the laugh.
> can be constructed as illegal and interfering from the FRR Team
The meaning of your sentence is not clear. Please clarify so we can all spend Friday evening drunkenly arguing about it. Thank you.
Ah thank you! A movie I've heard referred to a lot over the years but never seen. I've just read the plot summary and it sounds pretty nuts! Will have to watch it one day.
Like with gambling, the house always wins.
Come to think of it, gambling is better regulated.
Lifeishard, You're gonna have to help me out with the 'boat trippers' reference please. I keep seeing it but can't work it out. Is it referring to shorters?
Sorry, I duplicated tsbs1's question without realisng.
> he can buy whats left
This is very intriguing, but if he's buying the remains (I'm thinking this is a bit like buying back a car that an insurer has written off) with his capital then he's the owner and no-one else, not Hope, not us. How would this work for us I wonder?
Well now I'm even more confused and even more stumped as to why SN won't talk properly to us. My theory about SN trying to avoid the liquidators has gone out of the window. The fox is talking to the hounds, not running from them. This makes no sense. Who in FRR did that message come from?
Yeah but did you send it in Haiku format and confuse the hell out of them??! ;-) They're probably wondering why someone's sending them poems.
> If you are a real holder Ricardo, chill, you must see what Looed has done for us holders?
Absolutely I do see that (and I am, unfortunately, a real holder as FSHG know with 3m shares bought at .35, .42, .59) but I am confused. Why do you think I am against Looed? You implied that I responded badly to Looed below (I think that's what you meant anyway) but I don't think I did. He threw some shade my way, unjustifiably if you ask me, and I attempted to show him my perspective. And in my reply you'll see I said he was doing me a favour and praised his court case updates. I hope he continues them. Regarding FRR messages, I disagree with his views on verification, but he's entitled to his view as am I. Other than that, he's the messenger. My beef is only with FRR and ZM.
Sure, I will challenge anyone who I believe is overplaying the facts but that's not personal. I want clarity for all.
The Hulk lol. We need someone to play Zaza the bad guy - maybe Jeremy Irons or Alan Rickman?
Looed, your detective skills are clearly excellent but no-one's perfect...
> His benign language is an attempt to undermine (in my mind, insult) people
Your mind is misleading you. My choice of language was because some people here are a little defensive. That's understandable, but they are seeing ill intent that I haven't. In a few cases I see that people have been loose with wording then others are jumping on that ambiguity and taking things the wrong way. So I'll be a bit less benign for a mo (sorry) and suggest some people really need to 'calm their tits'. If you aren't sure what I'm saying then ask - I have my big boy pants on and can handle tough questioning.
> But the poster asks - can we really believe him? Post after post asking "is messaging / validation real?"
I make no apologies for asking, because it's a massively important question. Don't take any of that as an attack on you - you are solely the messenger (not forgetting the great work you did on helping FRR and the court reporting but that's different). I'm not accusing you of making anything up at all. I believe your intent is entirely honest. I have no idea why you were talking about "inventing messages" and "fooling FSHG" as I haven't seen anyone say that (I may have missed that and if so they deserve ridicule). If FSHG had been fooled (which I doubt) then that would be the doing of the message originator, which is not you. There is a difference between my FAITH in your sincerity, intent, and knowledge and me having ABSOLUTE PROOF that these messages are from FRR. I'm not big on faith.
Some come to this board, read our posts and those messages from someone at FRR, and interpret those as everything is nailed on to be sorted by FRR/SN. That's not the case as far as we know and I'll call that out until the situation changes.
I won't be paying for a hotshot legal team to sue for my money back. Nor will I be boarding a plane to the US to track down SN and ask why he hasn't been in touch properly. But, as a verified (by FSHG) shareholder I sure as hell can do one thing - keep asking relevant questions to probe what we know, what we think we know, and what we don't.
Anyway, why do I bother to address your accusations? Doesn't get me my money back and I should be working. Well, I don't like the fact that you are doing me a favour but seem to think I'm against you. It's untrue. Have a good weekend, thank you for the latest court update, and keep up the good work. I'm on your side.
P.S. Ive just seen another post from you: "I recall asking many times for help on this BB without anyone stepping up." I don't recall this but no matter. If my professional experience in IT and Financial Services can be of use then I would be pleased to assist you or FSHG if asked in the future.
There are many examples of company RNS's out there where companies are obliged to comment about a legal issue or case that they were involved in. Sure, they are carefully worded (because saying very little is the usual advice) but I see no GOOD reason why FRR would be compelled to be totally silent. The only reason I can think of is that SN doesn't want to mention a company name, or put his name to anything (hence the informal messages via Looed) because what he's trying escape the grasp of the liquidators and mentioning certain things (things that would otherwise be very normal for a healthy and functioning company) could give ammo to the opposition. Which could make some sort of sense while being potentially being on shaky legal ground, and a crap position for us to be put in - but then we already know that.
> 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
Unfortunately they haven't beyond all reasonable doubt. FRR said "we are continuing to work on behalf of all shareholders' best interests as we work to bring Frontera back to business". That message can be technically true, but still not include us. If that message came from a Company via an RNS then it'd be indisputable who the shareholders are. But it didn't, and we don't know who those shareholders are, or in what entity, and the message didn't specify. I want to believe that the message means us - but no-one here has any proof that the scope of "shareholders" being referred to includes me and you. Some might argue 'but why send a message to be passed onto retail shareholders if FRR wasn't referring to us?' and if the world was all fluffy and lovely then they'd have a valid point.
Anyway, that's all a bit negative but unfortunately it's the stark reality. In the turmoil of angst and desperation one must be extremely careful not to rely on the unproven. This is business, which is usually cut-throat. For us to be sure, we need to hear directly, officially from SN and Co in unambiguous terms what's happened to our asset and what our position will as ex-shareholders of FRR in any new FRR related company. Hopefully that will be soon.
No worries with you raising the question, this is a discussion forum by definition so anyone who doesn't want to talk can go and do something else. Talking is why we're here! (though some seem to forget that).
So, the amateur answer is: no-one knows.
No-one seems to have asked for a professional's answer but I suspect that if someone went to a legal expert with relevant company / finance experience then they'd probably advise writing it off as a total loss (given the crap protection given by the laws of the jurisdiction under which our original investment was made).
The hopeful's answer is that with legal cases being dealt with, and positive unofficial messages seemingly coming out from the company, that we can take comfort that the Director's are making progress with the aim of bringing the Company back and including existing/original FRR shareholders in that future. And while nothing's guaranteed, they are working towards that. 5 years on and SN hasn't thrown in the towel. A comeback could happen.
The cultist's answer is that SN is a god and should be blindly trusted without question.
My answer is based on frank realism - that the original share isn't coming back, the company might come back under a different guise, but in any event no-one's going to get any money from that apart from the Directors. Because this is AIM, and all the evidence from other AIM disasters is that the BoD look after themselves first and shareholders get stuffed. But I'm still here anyway, living on in hope that there will be the first AIM miracle where that doesn't happen and that SN is genuinely a decent person. It's possible, you never know what might happen...
Actually, none of us have any cards to play at present. Someone with very deep pockets can try to buy themselves into the game, but the rest of us are waiting for the hand to be dealt.
> Otherwise companies everywhere would be doing the same, transfering their assets to another part of the company in another country and leaving their liabilities in the original part of the company to be liquidated.
Exactly, there's been a lot of commentary about assets being moved but no-one knows how this has happened and more importantly, we're currently shareholders in the company that no longer owns anything of value. We aren't shareholders of a company that owns the asset, and we have not been told that we will be. The messages recieved from FRR representatives say that shareholders will be looked after. The obvious question is, which shareholders?
Tenners, on the matter of your Deloitte posts. As you may have gathered from my posts, I am not in the 'bury my head in the sand' or in the 'blind faith' camps and am broadly supportive of any efforts to find out more information about FRC even though I don't think it will help us get any money back in the long run. So having said that, I do think that some of your Deloitte posts are confusing and I can understand why other posters have reacted to them in the way they have. I respectfully suggest that any future Deloitte related posts are very concise and report only facts as provided by Deloitte, and keep opinions (whether yours or others) separated in other posts. That should hopefully avoid further confusion. But keep up the good work, if people here believe that SN is correct in his actions with FRUS then they also cannot believe that asking questions of a process around FRC that is already in play can do any harm whatsoever.