Member Info for Spudsoil

So my reading of the Judge’s TRO summary is that he sees it the same way as Kawaley did initially - he also makes no reference to K’s follow up remarks about ‘likely chance on appeal’ or whatever it was that got us excited a few weeks back - that’s suggests he either hasn’t seen that document (seems strange) or we misinterpreted what the ‘likely chance of success’ statement meant?
I’m also reading it that FRF have until 20 May to provide info to the court that gives Seeborg food for thought ahead of 6 June hearing - if we don’t then the 6 June is a replay of the TRO hearing as his comments in the TRO summary state they are one and the same. I am trying, and failing, to find anything positive in the Judge’s summary. What is also worrying is that our expensive legal team appear to be putting up applications which stand no chance of success or even meet the standard of being assessed. I’m struggling st this stage to understand any reason for continuing with this - we can’t have any aces up our sleeve or we would show them by now, so it has to be a delaying tactic. Is that now redundant as well given that liquidation proceedings have commenced?
I’m flummoxed to be honest - the summary is about as one sided as you can get.

I don’t use Facebook but I hint I recall someone saying there was a Frontera Georgia group? Is it worth reaching out to them to see if they can shed any light about ongoing operations - As in the day to day grind of getting up and going to work for FRR In Georgia - maybe a bit premature but if the liquidation is in full swing then these guys would be getting stood down/told not to come to work etc wouldn’t they? That sort of stuff wouldn’t stay quiet for long on social media surely?

Q2 2018: we couldn’t even get a 3m injection of cash from a hedge fund.
Q2 2019: in discussions with a lender for a 150m credit facility.
Something big has happened in that 12 month period - barrels and barrels of something big I reckon

Hi Gary
Thanks for the info - maybe it’s a delaying tactic to secure the funding, who knows! But agree that on the face of it what FRR has done appears to contradict the mortgage agreement. They are paying some hefty legal fees so there must be something here that has allowed the legal guys to approve it. Small print of the small print?

In simple terms it still feels like this comes back to FRR needing to secure funding to pay hope off. At least we now know that any lender in talks with us is kicking these off right in the middle of our legal battle - so if they are at the table talking to us now, that suggests they are comfortable with what’s happening. Ultimately if we can’t find 20m of funding then all our glorious business plans and rate of pay back assumptions on new wells means diddly squat, legal case or no legal case. An FSHG led $30m crowd fund?!

Zen I read it as the expedited discovery was not approved as if the judge didn’t see the urgency to grant the TRO then That reads across to there being no need to expedite the discovery, so yes the June hearing will start that process.

Is another positive that we have seemingly struck a deal with the GG? That in itself is a big positive if it has happened as suggests relations are good (easy to forget there is potential arbitration with them as well).

Maybe it comes full circle back to the oil. If we are still haven’t proved the commerciality then surely Hope has a decent case as he is basically saying FRR couldn’t sort a piss up in a brewery. So to maximise value he takes over. However if we are producing that argument becomes (on a scale) redundant.

I wonder what is left in FRCC if B12 has been transferred out? Or if nothing maybe they are looking to take control ahead of the asset being transferred back (in their thinking).

im Intrigued to understand more about the corporate reshuffle that Zaza appears to have undertaken. Having read the court docs thoroughly I am as pessimistic as I have been since dec 24th on this debacle. On the face of it shifting the asset from one legal entity to another without notifying the charge holder appears to be questionable, but if they have been taking advice from their legal team then you would hope there is legal merit in doing it. Backing that up is the fact there has been a further financial transaction with Green cap - if it is indeed the reputable green cap and not the pay day lender version then they would also have taken legal advice before entering in to this deal - and why on earth would you execute the transaction if you know that it’s going to be unwound by the courts. More questions than answers as ever - the green cap deal is a glimmer of light, but whether it’s the fact that this whole episode dragging on has finally ground me down, or the worrying (and seemingly very professional and not bitter) slant that Hope’s lawyers have documented, I’m starting to position my self for the worst here. I hate admitting that to myself but it just feels like it’s slipping away. I would be so overjoyed to be proved wrong,
- as Keniro says we should know ‘our side’s’ best arguments by middle of next week and that will either confirm our worst fears or spark a new bit of optimism. Best of luck all - we bloody deserve it.

The bit I’m confused about.... reading the court doc, we are seeking a TRO but that TRO doesn’t apply to OMF which is the entity that is linked to the enforcement of the collateral. In that case what is the point in the TRO? Appreciate it’s my basic take on first read but that bit has stumped me -any ideas?

Can someone confirm which Green capital it is? Quick search on google suggests there are two very different companies, one looks reputable, one looks like a payday lender of last resort......

It’s not clear as FRRs lawyers look to be disputing Hope’s lawyers interpretation of that issue. Still think my post from a few days back stands - we have the lob facility approved and this action is to see what we can get. Worse case is fall back to lob and pay OMF off. The quote around degrading OMFs security would seem to support that view.

I think the Judge’s comments were geared around the supposed urgency of granting the TRO. He didn’t see the urgency (which suggests nothing can be enforced between now and when he reviews the request)

As in .... you don’t need a restructuring / asset sale specialist if your assets are performing! They weren’t but we now think they are!

Broadly speaking i think you could argue some of this was in the interests of FRR BEFORE we started producing more oil I.e. we were insolvent. But if that has changed then that’s one of his arguments quashed, and a key one at that.

My view for what it’s worth..... FRR have secured the Durham loan but this is contingent on conclusion of legal matters, so we can’t draw down on that until the court cases are concluded. They are comforted knowing this funding source is available but don’t need it right now (we are cash positive from oil sales) so are happy to pursue Hope for damages - if it comes off great we can then put the proceeds from the court case and/or the Durham Loan towards development of Blcok 12. If we don’t get the result we want on the fiduciary case then we settle the non-payment of debt/interest via the Durham Loan.
Appreciate there are a ton of different theories but above seems plausible and may suggest why FRR are not too concerned about supposedly going ‘all in’ as the actual risk is relatively small.

Okay great thanks for confirming, you should start billing LSE for your services to this board

You are a popular person today OOPSI and sorry for another question. In your experience is it normal to draft the content of the legal document in the way FRR have I.e. on the assumption the Judge agrees with them? I know you mentioned earlier that this process is done to speed things up but surely as a competent lawyer would you not want to be comfortable with the wording/tone/implied outcome of what you had drafted e.g. it broadly mirrors any conversations that have occurred between counsels? Or am I wishful thinking here? It just seems like an incredibly positive document to put in front of a judge and if it’s even slightly against the run of play in terms of what the judge is thinking is there not a risk of irritating the judge through being so assumptive?

And from here on, ADVFN shall now be known as the Spiv site. Love the choice of wording.