Member Info for Spudsoil

Thanks mate. So nothing to worry about?

I don’t have Facebook so can someone put my mind at rest - this isn’t signposting anything serious I hope? I seem to remember someone mentioning a while back that there is a Facebook account run by FRR staff in Georgia?

Would love that to be correct but could just as likely be a follow on from Hope’s claim that FRR hadn’t paid his legal bills. We have a week to provide a response but we don’t have to, the judge will then confirm what needs settling and when? It’s another wait and see !

Thanks for your efforts Taffy. The logical conclusion has to be that revenue from oil sales picked up significantly in q4 or at least from q1. Why? I don’t understand why Durham would even be at the table if our forecasts weren’t strong, and equally why would service providers continue working if they were either not being paid, or foresaw no time in the near future of being paid? Something changed - was it T39 or the gas? Or both

If it comes down to a declaration of solvency which is supported by a vendor guarantee and/or commercial flows/tie up then I support the action that’s been taken. Spend £2m or whatever the amount is on legal fees to chase millions more in damages, which also provides more time to secure finance. The delisting was the killer here for a quicker fix I reckon.

Any accountant types that can shed any light on exactly what this will lead to, if one is submitted? I know it means we are confirming we think we can pay all debts within 12m but does it actually give us that period in which to do so? I assume the liquidators oversee the repayment, but what happens once everything is repaid. Does the company cease trading? Or is it irrelevant as the asset has been transferred?

I would be worried if their response (assuming they make one) has no reference to the solvency declaration as that has to be a trump card for us in terms of educating the judge around commerciality. Unless the solvency Dec relies solely on personal wealth of the Directors

Agreed, this seems highly plausible theory. The other bonus if this is a correct is that it means the Durham loan potentially fell through due to de-listing, rather than due diligence findings (oil flows not hitting the numbers). Of everything I’ve read this seems most likely and would certainly explain the delaying tactics.
ODR - was thinking the same, hopefully it will be covered in FRRs 30/5 response to the court? So next Friday morning unless they produce earlier (not sure any point on waiting to last minute as Hope doesn’t get option to respond to this one).

The other argument here is that we took a punt on going after Hope with the risk being hefty legal fees and the reward being millions of $? So if it comes to nothing we pay out the fees but maybe they felt they had enough evidence (or took the gamble that discovery would give them what they need).

Forget about the court case and fiduciary duties - on Dec 23rd last year if someone said we could get Hope off the board (done) and the notes repaid (pending) then we’d all be happy. So FRR now need to make the case that they can repay note within 12 months and continue to operate as a going concern. On the assumption that lenders will want to release funds only upon conclusion of the legal issues then maybe this all gets sorted through a straightforward transaction over the next few weeks or months. The key is demonstrating to the court we have means to repay. Maybe the personal guarantees come in to play here with SN and ZM’s personal wealth?

Hope has until cob tonight to respond, believe we can then counter up until cob 30/5, and then hearing scheduled for 6th. So tonight, next Thursday and then the Thursday following. You can switch off in between. As if!

Another element I’m not clear on..... FRR quoting the “realistic prospect of success on appeal” line - there was some debate about interpretation of this statement but I’m guessing FRR view it as relevant as they reference it, which is a positive. Did we ever find out why the judge felt that way or was that due out in the summing up which never came because the case was stopped? Is the judge obliged to tell us why, and should FRR know why? That becomes a massive part of this debate now, if, as it seems, we don’t have any other cards to play (unless discovery throws something up) so I’d love to know a bit more about why they judge said this. Maybe we will never know if the case was stopped.

I agree about it being key to get to trial, but I still have a nagging doubt about the seemingly primary issue FRR have put forward, which is the blocking of funding by Hope. Hope was adamant that the JCAM funding fell away (it didn’t get to the ‘blocking’ stage) and the other funding option was Zaza asking for seniority. However much emotion you put alongside the facts to the jury, if Hope’s version is correct then I don’t fancy our chances. You can’t have Zaza putting forward an emotional argument about helping Georgia to prosper and the company being one step from greatness but held back by lack of funding, but on the other hand only putting forward funding if he obtained seniority - as a neutral (juror) my first thought would be if you believe in the company so much inject funding behind OMFs debt. And if you don’t want to, don’t blame anyone else if the company becomes insolvent. One contradicts the other imo and it doesn’t leave me feeling positive. Agree with Contra, discovery is key.

Thanks 5p - that’s really encouraging. The answer on the re-list - too many variables for them to say anything concrete but the fact they have answersed that question is encouraging,

Issues with being able to inject capital in to the company due to debt seniority so the boys say screw it, we’ll do it via personal funds from the PG?

That would be a nice way to settle the debt - Steve and Zaza give him $30m and off he goes!

if Hope has appointed his own people does that mean that they become the license holders as Directors of FRCC? Appreciate we have moved the asset but I’m working on worst case scenarios ie. asset is transferred back.

Actually ignore my rant - reading Champs on II it appears we did include judge Ks appeal comments but Seeborg has not mentioned them. I share the champs feelings......

Thanks Ears for the reply, but I still don’t understand why FRR wouldn’t include that in their summary - if I was their lawyer that’s the first thing that gets written down on the statement as it is saying from one legal jurisdiction to another ‘hang on a minute there might some stuff here that makes me rethink my first judgement’. What possible reason could FRRs legal guys not have for including that?. We are way past the point of holding anything back till court arent we?

Reading SNs response if I have it right, we have until 29 May to return the declaration of solvency, which contains a statement that allows us to state all debts plus interest can be repaid within 12 months. Assuming it is signed I have two questions for anyone with liquidation experience in Caymans!:
1. Does that mean no further steps can be taken by the liquidation team until 29 May (or earlier if the solvency declaration is returned earlier)?
2. If the declaration of solvency is signed does that give us the opportunity to go in front of court and put our case forward for how the debts will be repaid within 12 months? And if the court sees there is a plan does that buy us the time to (attempt to) execute the plan?

If the answer to both questions is yes then I feel a bit better as we can then demonstrate over a 12m period to all those concerned that without the shackles of OMF we are able to put in place financing, grow our business and repay outstanding debts.