The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
Amended Complaint. 60. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 60 of the First Amended Complaint. 61. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 61 of the First Amended Complaint. 62. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 62 of the First Amended Complaint. 63. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 63 of the First Amended Complaint. 64. The allegation contained within paragraph 64 of the First Amended Complaint states a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations contained within paragraph 64 of the First Amended Complaint. 65. The allegation contained within paragraph 65 of the First Amended Complaint states a legal conclusion for which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations contained within paragraph 65 of the First Amended Complaint. 66. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 66 of the First Amended Complaint. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES Defendants assert the following affirmative defenses without assuming any burden of proof that otherwise does not exist as a matter of law. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Joinder) Plaintiffs’ claims and/or the relief they seek are barred by Plaintiffs’ failure and inability to join indispensable parties, namely Outrider Master Fund, L.P., a Cayman Islands entity.
and specifically deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief detailed within that paragraph. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligent Misrepresentation Against All Defendants) 50. Paragraph 50 of the First Amended Complaint does not contain any factual allegations and therefore does not require a response. 51. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 51 of the First Amended Complaint. 52. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 52 of the First Amended Complaint. 53. The allegations contained within paragraph 53 of the First Amended Complaint state legal conclusions for which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations contained within paragraph 53 of the First Amended Complaint and specifically deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief detailed within that paragraph. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Civil Conspiracy) 54. Paragraph 54 of the First Amended Complaint does not contain any factual allegations and therefore does not require a response. 55. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 55 of the First Amended Complaint. 56. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 56 of the First Amended Complaint. 57. The allegations contained within paragraph 57 of the First Amended Complaint state legal conclusions for which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations contained within paragraph 57 of the First Amended Complaint and specifically deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief detailed within that paragraph. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Injunctive Relief) 58. Paragraph 58 of the First Amended Complaint does not contain any factual allegations and therefore does not require a response. 59. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 59 of the First
those allegations. 38. Defendants admit that Hope previously served as a Director of FRC. Reference to “economic relationships with third parties” is not sufficiently described in paragraph 37 to permit admission or denial. Accordingly, Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 38 of the First Amended Complaint. 39. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 39 of the First Amended Complaint. 40. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 40 of the First Amended Complaint. 41. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 41 of the First Amended Complaint. 42. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 42 of the First Amended Complaint. 43. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 43 of the First Amended Complaint. 44. The allegations contained within paragraph 44 of the First Amended Complaint state legal conclusions for which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations contained within paragraph 44 of the First Amended Complaint and specifically deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief detailed within that paragraph. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Fraudulent or Intentional Misrepresentation Against All Defendants)) 45. Paragraph 45 of the First Amended Complaint does not contain any factual allegations and therefore does not require a response. 46. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 46 of the First Amended Complaint. 47. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 47 of the First Amended Complaint. 48. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 48 of the First Amended Complaint. 49. The allegations contained within paragraph 49 of the First Amended Complaint state legal conclusions for which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations contained within paragraph 49 of the First Amended Complaint
Plaintiffs’ overall business in the country at risk by causing immediate and substantial irreparable harm to Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation for reliability in the industry,” and on that basis deny those allegations. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 29 of the First Amended Complaint. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Fiduciary Duty an Duty of Loyalty Against Mr. Hope) 30. Paragraph 30 of the First Amended Complaint does not contain any factual allegations and therefore does not require a response. 31. Defendants admit that Hope previously served as a Director of FRC. The legal conclusions set forth in paragraph 31 do not require admission or denial, and any remaining allegations are denied. 32. Defendants admit that Hope previously served as a Director of FRC. The legal conclusions set forth in paragraph 32 do not require admission or denial, and any remaining allegations are denied. 33. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 33 of the First Amended Complaint. 34. Defendants deny the allegations and legal conclusions in paragraph 34 of the First Amended Complaint. 35. The allegations contained within paragraph 35 of the First Amended Complaint state legal conclusions for which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Defendants deny the allegations contained within paragraph 35 of the First Amended Complaint and specifically deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief detailed within that paragraph. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations Against Mr. Hope) 36. Paragraph 36 of the First Amended Complaint does not contain any factual allegations and therefore does not require a response. 37. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations contained within Paragraph 37 of the First Amended Complaint, and on that basis den
relevant loan documents, including that certain Collateral Agency Agreement. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 20 of the First Amended Complaint. 21. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 21 of the First Amended Complaint. 22. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 22 of the First Amended Complaint. 23. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 23 of the First Amended Complaint. 24. Defendants admit that Maples has possession and control of all the issued and outstanding shares of Frontera Resources Caucasus Corporation (“FRCC”) and that Outrider Master Fund, L.P. may direct the Collateral Agent pursuant to the Collateral Agency Agreement. Defendants deny the remaining allegations in paragraph 24 of the First Amended Complaint. 25. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the First Amended Complaint to the extent that the Collateral Agency Agreement and Equitable Mortgage Over Shares, attached to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibits C and D, respectively, contain provisions governing Maples’ powers as Collateral Agent under the Note. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 25 of the First Amended Complaint. 26. Defendants admit the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the First Amended Complaint to the extent that section 9 of the Equitable Mortgage, attached to the First Amended Complaint as Exhibit D, contains provisions authorizing Maples to take certain actions. Such documents, and provisions therein, speak for themselves and do not require admission or denial. Defendants deny the remaining allegations contained in paragraph 26 of the First Amended Complaint. 27. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 27 to the extent that the “Solicitations of Instructions” section of the Collateral Agency Agreement speaks for itself. To the extent that the remainder of the allegations in paragraph 27 require denial, all such allegations are denied. 28. Defendants deny the allegations in paragraph 28 of the First Amended Complaint. 29. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or deny whether FRCC’s liquidation will “cause irreparable friction with the Georgian government,” have “damaging impacts on Plaintiffs’ overall ongoing business,” or “cause the host government to pu
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT AND LIMITED GENERAL DENIAL Without waiving the defenses set forth herein, but insisting and relying upon each of them, and answering that all allegations contained in the First Amended Complaint for which an admission or denial is required are specifically denied unless otherwise admitted herein, Defendants respond to the individually-numbered paragraphs of the First Amended Complaint as follows: UNNUMBERED INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPHS Unnumbered paragraphs one through three of the First Amended Complaint are introductory in nature, include argument and conclusory statements, and/or factual inaccuracies. Accordingly, these introductory paragraphs do not require admission or denial; but, to the extent relevant, Defendants deny all allegations. THE PARTIES 1. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the First Amended Complaint. 2. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the First Amended Complaint. 3. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the First Amended Complaint. 4. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the First Amended Complaint. 5. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the First Amended Complaint. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. Defendants admit this is a civil action between citizens of different states, but deny the remaining factual allegations contained in paragraph 6 of the First Amended Complaint. 7. Defendants admit the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the First Amended Complaint. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Defendants admit the allegations in paragraph 8 of the First Amended Complaint. 9. Defendants admit that Hope is the managing member of Outrider Management. Defendants admit the remaining allegations in paragraph 9 of the First Amended Complaint to the extent that Outrider Management’s website states that Outrider Management “invests in distresse
So this is Hopes lawyers response to the original complaint...actually it was the amended complaint but it was back in April. As you would expect they are strongly refuting allegations. It’s a bit difficult to read and I have only briefly read to date but court by eye towards the end when it states as below. Hope demands a trial by jury.
JURY DEMAND Defendants hereby demand trial by jury on all claims and defenses for which a right to jury trial exists.
Having a look now.....it’s 10 pages
We are all shooting in the dark here but my best guess is that the latest document is exactly what it says on the tin....a full transcript of the court hearing last week which was an hour long. We know the result of the hearing of course and the judge was fairly savage in his summary but as been pointed out this could give a lot more information. I doubt it relates to any nda but who knows.
We still know nothing about the sanction issue with documents posted on both sides but not available to view. Presumably there will be another court judgment on this one way or another....probably in next few days
My guess is that there is a full transcript (word for word potentially) of the court hearing last week that you can purchase but not via pacer. It might be useful but we already know the court decision and the judge order with his summary and reasons for rejecting.
I can spell...really
Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/9/2019. (Related documents(s) [41]) (jabS, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/11/2019)
Related document is FRR brief that was posted on the 7th.....presumably relating to sanctions. We can’t view on pacer until the 9th September. Very cloak and dagger....maybe we inadvertently got involved with the JFK assainatiin or some other conspiracy!
Any one understand. I’m not authorized to get document on pacer so I’m told....but I can purchase through court reporter??? Do I have to ring this Jo Ann Bruce and make her an offer she can’t refuse? It’s all rather odd!
Transcript of Proceedings held on 6/6/19, before Judge Richard Seeborg. Court Reporter Jo Ann Bryce, telephone number 510-910-5888, joann_bryce@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction after 90 days. After that date, it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re 41 Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/9/2019. (Related documents(s) 41 ) (jabS, COURTSTAFF) (Filed on 6/11/ 2019)
Good news that YJ have at least acknowledged......also latest Caymans Islands Gazette released yesterday and FRR not mentioned. This is also good....if the insolvency process was proceeding the final shareholders meeting would be listed.....I believe.....please correct if I’m wrong. That coupled with the fact nothing’s listed in the Grand court. So again looks promising on the insolvency front.
Having said that in the minutes posted straight after the court hearing it said the following
‘Plaintiff may file a brief regarding monetary sanctions by 6/14/19. Preliminary Injunction Denied. Court to issue an order.’
Plaintiff to file brief not defendant so why have they also filed? Maybe it if FRR lead....we just don’t know.
Arsenal FRR court document dated 7th and Hope’s dated 10th so you may be correct......however I have just checked the judge’s order denying the injunction and it does say the following
‘The determination of whether sanctions will issue against Plaintiffs will be addressed in a separate order after further briefing.’
I had not noticed it before. It seems very likely that any sanctions would be against FRR as it stands
Hi Arsenal.....I did post the below this morning. The transcript was dated 6th June but filed on the 10th. Doesn’t tell us anything else....cheers
This is another transcript order this one submitted by Gregg Ficks (Hopes lawyer) confirming the submission of a PDF to the court. Presumably relating to the monetary sanctions order which we still know nothing about. Frontera lawyers submitted the same last week.
This is another transcript order this one submitted by Gregg Ficks (Hopes lawyer) confirming the submission of a PDF to the court. Presumably relating to the monetary sanctions order which we still know nothing about. Frontera lawyers submitted the same last week.
Yes I agree. FRR had to prove they were solvent full stop. You can’t be solvent on hand and not on the other just because the one hand only holds 5% of the asset. Plus if we were deemed insolvent in any respect Georgia would take back the asset....no question about that. Hope is still a threat but I’m more comfortable about that threat. The arbitration is the issue I would like put to bed. We know from Steve N’s affidavit that FRR have been damaged in the arbitration talks because of the insolvency issue. Hopefully we can resolve this now. A JV with a Major would surely smooth over any issues!!