Member Info for ZiggyZag

Hi WestH
Enjoy reading what B20 writes , but he needs to back up with facts to justify as being someone in the know ( as some see him ) .
Unless he produces new facts he is just like the rest of us in only being able to add his thoughts and theory to facts that emerge in the public domain

Looed , thanks for your well thought out response to me last night re my question to you of why you do not think a joint statement is necessary anymore.
I would imagine that immediately after the judgement or maybe even before , both sides lawyers would have discussed how to proceed in relaying the outcome to the world . So perhaps before the first release by Georgians they already knew Zaza’s desire not to publish whole document ( including his reasons )and that knowledge has driven their tactics .
Their public stance of lets publish all gives the impression that they have achieved all their aims in Arbi and have have nothing to fear from its release. If you know your opponent cannot allow full disclosure its a good tactic .
So Zaza responds publicly with ...joint statement.... ( thanks Arsenal )

Georgians have the upper hand here in that they claim victory , cite certain main points , backed up by Hogans and KPMG ( Hope’s auditors by the way ...I think ) but no one outside the circle is privy to details of their claims or the finer points of the judgement .
All this makes me believe we have had an acceptable outcome .
Zaza request for joint statement if released you would think would clarify the FACTS of who was awarded what , and an indication of the implication of those facts going forward for both sides .

Is subsequent termination letter a continuation of tactic in that they know its debatable but it backs up their version of facts of Arbi . At the end of they day they can rescind it if tactic fails or more likely force us into another court battle over it many months down the line in the hope that we may have folded as an entity before we enter the court or at least their action of termination is not ruled on in court before elections .

If Georgians are happy with full release ( really ? ) why are they not happy about re partial release , facts are facts after all and clearly no side would agree to incorrect facts appearing in statement . If facts are as stated already by Georgians what have they got to lose by agreed joint statement .

hi Looed , why do you think a joint statement ( assuming thats what you mean )is no longer required?

Jeez ...after all this time, all the sleuthing and all that has been put in the public domain we really are non the wiser re wether we will ever see any of our money back .

We await Hope trial
We await outcome of personal guarantee action by Hope .
We do not know judgment ( Feb 20) re personal guarantee action by Mourant
We do not know if we are producing any product
We do not know who we have paid
We do not know how much money we have
We do not know how much money we owe
We do not know if any partners are still working with us
We do not know if any potential partners are still interested in us , NDA’s etc.
We do not know true result of Arbitration
We do not know what we asset we still have
And lastly and most importantly we do not know progress of liquidation, which may result in us loosing our main asset irrespective of a positive Arbitration result or not

We have gained a lot of knowledge of what has gone on surrounding all these issues but basically after all these months and digging , in relation to the possibility of future money in our pockets from our investments here , we shareholders know ....Sweet F.A.

Re Bugs 23 12 post lat night

Quote responding to statement below from United National Movement leader.

The United National Movement (UNM) says Georgia can meet its needs even without Russian gas.

"We do not need Russian gas, especially since the second, very large project" Shah Deniz 2 "has already been completed, and additional gas is already passing through the territory of Georgia, which enters Turkey, and then later it will go to Europe. We have all the resources to ensure that Georgia meets 100% demand without Russia, ”said Roman Gotsiridze, UNM leader.

Sorry cannot fix link ...on Newsreprt.ge

Regarding the above , below was posted earlier this month. Still unable to find any report on the judgement .

Just looking over Caymans sites, courts , Gazette etc and came across below . In the great scheme not important I suppose , think this is our men being sued for lawyers fee’s re Caymans litigations, gave personal guarantees I recall. Cannot find judgment .

Cant recall seeing it on here previously but apologies if previously posted .

WEDNESDAY 12TH FEBRUARY 2020

CIVIL DIVISION

CHAMBERS @ 9:30 A.M.

HON. JUSTICE RAMSAY-HALE
G 118/19 Mourant Ozannes v. Steve Nicandros et al
S/summary judgment Mourant/Stuarts

Jeez ...should read ... They have signed off what they have written as a true reflection of what GOGC have told them .

They have signed off that what they have written is a true reflection of what GOGC have told them .

In my position I am interviewed each year by auditors ( who are a sizeable firm ) with questions that cover many issues including litigation . Never been asked to verify what I have told them & they cover themselves with disclaimer.

In the early days main reason we put forward for company lockdown re communications to us or indeed anyone centred round ....because they have probably been told by legals to stay stumb to everyone because of litigation....
Litigation is still ongoing on different fronts in US and clearly Arbi is very relevant to some of those cases... but Zaza is now talking , but not to us .
Here’s a theory ...has he been told not to talk to us on the fear of potential shareholder action against the Company once this saga has been played out.

Adam Kinzinger is also the guy that together with Senator Connelly sent a letter to Georgian PM back in January re his Govt abandoning political reforms .

"The Arbitration Tribunal also ruled that Frontera’s attempt to transfer the contract to its affiliated company (Frontera US) was illegal.".......says the Georgians ..... however no proof from any other source regarding this statement .
And illegal in what way , certainly not under the legal process / laws of insolvency, as that issue is in the domain of New York & Cayman courts and still being played out , so presumably ...if true ...against the PSA

Chris572
The docket you referred to yesterday , what date was shown against it ,searching on pace monitor the latest one I can see is Jan 22nd .

Posted by Devex on ii couple of weeks ago
Agree about the head spinning TOT - and some of us have had nearly a decade of that in this share. Some poor soles even more.
I remain very pessimistic here but the resilience is remarkable. Big egos have been hurt - and as ever with this company it is very difficult to distinguish between fact, fiction or just plain arrogance.
B20 is a bit like Cinerama5 and Kickmuck - we all speculated as to their true origin. As you know I was always convinced the C5 was directly linked to SN - perhaps his personal assistant. Kickmuck clearly was linked to the Company in some way - a couple of posts had info that simply could not have been gleaned elsewhere.
Re B20 and links to the company I would urge caution. LSE posting history was wiped out pre 2018 - and since then I think he has only posted on FRR. However I was in Afren in their dying days back in 2016/17 (and actually made some money of it). I do recall B20 posting on Afren in their final weeks - and unfortunately he wasn’t right.
Re emailing Zaza I can confirm no response received. He has been very consistent.

Here is my very simplistic view .
If Zaza is correct in his version of Arbi outcome why does he need to get into public spat with Georgians over outcome , including bringing in the US big guns again .
If we are good to go ( via Arbie ) and we have partner / finance / SM or whatever waiting surly we show Arbie docs to them outlining our right to continue with what we have left and move on regardless .

Just looking over Caymans sites, courts , Gazette etc and came across below . In the great scheme not important I suppose , think this is our men being sued for lawyers fee’s re Caymans litigations, gave personal guarantees I recall. Cannot find judgment .

Cant recall seeing it on here previously but apologies if previously posted .

WEDNESDAY 12TH FEBRUARY 2020

CIVIL DIVISION

CHAMBERS @ 9:30 A.M.

HON. JUSTICE RAMSAY-HALE
G 118/19 Mourant Ozannes v. Steve Nicandros et al
S/summary judgment Mourant/Stuarts

Star
Your points re FTI are valid , but they are dealing /referring with the validity of transfer re Liquidation Laws and it will be a pointer to how we currently stand re value if they continue in NY.
The point I was answering to Looed was his reference to the statement by you that the move was in breach of the mortgage agreement . Cawley stated agreement ( and therefore terms ) came to an end when possession was granted , and it was after that event that asset was removed from company . Two separate issues

Looed...wish I had a mane !

Looed
Star has posted on at least 3 occasions since liquidation began re asset move being against mortgage agreement . On each occasion I have replied with similar to below which I posted to Star back in Jan when he last brought it up .
No one so far including Star has said its incorrect

Re .....The mortgage agreement that specifically stated that transfer of the asset was prohibited.....

Last year when Caymans Judge was being rushed into injunction by Hope side he said:
Mr Hughes ( Hope lawyer) made somewhat vague allusions to steps which could be taken at the subsidiary level to erode the value of Outrider's security.

He went onto say

Therefore it seems to me that once one reaches the stage where the contract comes to an end (as it would do with the granting of possession) there is no right in the responderit to beprotected by the granting an injunction.

Asset move was in the period after possession by Maples and before liquidation. So above means asset removal as far as Mortgage terms are concerned was not in breach of agreement .

Is the liquidator privy to Arbitration papers, if not , and if ( a big if it seems based on what we have seen ) we have some value left are we trying to keep them in the dark .

For once I agree with Star . As I posted last week an indicator of how bad or goodish the arbitration result was will be what FTI do next i.e. any significant potential value left continue in New York to try and secure it , if not pack up their bags and return to Caymans to have final wind up meeting .