Member Info for ZiggyZag

Earsbern ...re your 10.54 post
I have been worried since DTI were successful in obtaining Cayman court supervision re liquidation.
Trying to put assets out of reach of creditors is what companies / directors do regularly when the house is about to stormed.
Its a given for any liquidator to examine transactions in the period close to liquidation in relation to asset moves , money transfers etc and attempt to reverse any actions deemed illegal under insolvency laws.
I do get mixed up with the company set up but presumably under licence conditions FRCC are allowed to sell to SM or farm out / JV etc and that was the talk amongst us all prior to Dec 18
Consensus seems to be that if asset is out of company then licence would revert back to Georgians and all sides except them lose.
On the back of this many are saying nothing to be gained by DTI ( some say Hope ) in perusing asset .
I do agree with Oopsi post earlier that possibly Hope has been outfoxed re asset removal without breaching loan agreement .
However it is not Hopes agreement that I fear .......its was removal in breech of solvency law .
Timing of removal and / or fair value are issues that DTI have referred to in their submission to NY court that they wish to investigate .

So here is my worry:

DTI are liquidating FRCC who held asset within its structure .

If they are successful in voiding asset transfer it then reverts back to the book of FRCC structure.

So if put back in FRCC what would have changed re licence conditions, it would be as we were prior liquidation process starting.

The entity of FRCC is still in existence , it has not yet had its affairs wound up and presumably is still legally free to undertake transactions re its assets with regards to sales.

In other words if under licence agreement FRCC were able to sell asset prior to 1st May 19 would the same not still apply if it regained asset now .

Its not Hope who would have the asset to sell , its not DTI either ...its still the licence holder FRCC who would hold asset and subsequently would be selling it as per licence agreement allows .

So nightmare scenario.......DTI recover asset on behalf of FRCC , who then sell it to SM , DTI oversees distribution of funds to creditors etc (with no trickle down to us , we are not shareholders in FRCC ), final meeting held , wind up of FRCC and its dissolved.

Above is my take on a possible scenario , happy to be corrected and told where I am worrying unnecessarily.

Thanks Taff
Struggling to square this latest court doc with B20 post and Mads opinion re Non objection certificate. DTI are still seeking discovery on all aspects of the FRR group including FRUS where we think asset went to . So presumably still looking at legality of asset move , amongst other things.

B-2-0
Could you please expand on your conclusion reached in your 23.15 post

Should read 161(4)

Hi Mad
My comments re PWC yesterday were based on the points below taken from DTI’s submission to NY Court.
As you can see 161 (5) identifies PWC as being a party of interest to DTI
Whilst they may not have yet received any summons or whatever it is they would get , they clearly were being told to expect one should DTI be successful in their request for recognition .

161. Under the circumstances, the Liquidators respectfully request that, pursuant to
11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(4), the Court allow them to commence discovery in the United States with respect
to: (1) all entities in the Frontera Group incorporated or otherwise doing business in the United States;
and (2) the FRCC Directors and officers: Steven C. Nicandros and Zaza Mamulaishvili, both in their
capacity as FRCC Directors and directors of any other member of the Frontera Group; (3) Levan
Bakhutashvili, in his capacity as Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of FRCC;
(4) PwC; (5) any professional advisors engaged by the Frontera Group in relation to the Assignment
and Arbitration; and (6) any other related persons and entities.
162. Obtaining this information will substantially assist the Liquidators in realizing assets of
FRCC and determining whether, where and how FRCC should commence actions asserting the
Potential Claims.

Hi Mad
Sorry bud ,but you are way of beam .
PWC are not requesting any papers .As repeatedly and correctly stated by ODR earlier PWC are formally telling the court who is representing them / who to send any papers to, this will be after they have been served by DTI / NY court
Likewise DTI has not been... prompted into recognition hearing by introduction of PWC by FRR ( that did not happen ) .... ...they have instigated it , see initial submission by DTI to NY Court last year
They are seeking to be recognised ( with the backing of Caymans court ) in the US courts in order to fully investigate the conduct / actions / finances of FRR with particular attention to the asset move .
As I have said prior DTI involvement should not be treated lightly or simply dismissed as being part of the solution as the solution they may provide is to have the asset move judged to be illegal and voided by Caymans court.

Been catching up on posts from last few weeks and I see in the Texas hearing a joint request for a protection order was granted.

On the back of this there has been much speculation as to what info presented to the court would warrant such order.....details of a deal struck with SM etc .

Whilst I hope thats the case , could it simply be that because of the nature of the litigation our men will have to produce a lot of personal info re finances assets etc to the court and it is that info they wish to keep confidential .
If that was the reason nothing to be gained by Hope in opposing the move ,
hence joint request.

Ears
I thought we had been through Judge imposed ADR , within the 120 day period set in the summer that finished Nov . If so is it that period that put process on hold meaning original court slot lost and now new dates set to fit in with Seeborgs calendar.

Currently in Las Vegas for Christmas and New Year .
As you do when in Vegas as a FRR groupie looking on Google to see if any sites come up different to UK based searches . Only thing new ( to me ) I have come across is below , cannot find any info on what the Co is / does
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0802328052

I have posted previously that I think the terms of the agreement ceased once Maples were told to take control , so if correct moving the asset was not then in breach of the mortgage agreement .

However I am still nervous re DTI ‘s continued actions in NY .
They have said in original NY submission docs that they view the asset move with suspicion re closeness to liquidation and / or company that was subsequently liquidated getting fair value for the asset at the time of move . Remember linked to this they said they noted we were suing Georgians for 3.5 B .
Would think their catch all approach is to try and unearth as much info as possible re this area .
I believe Caymans court can void the transfer if deemed illegal .

Ears , yes agree re ADR timescale , this date for Seeborg has only gone up since Tuesday evening when I last looked . So possibly added yesterday at close of ADR period . Have not looked back at court docs to see if Jan date was pencilled in at time of ADR order. As I posted on 26th think if ADR produced any thing court notes indicate Magistrate judge gets involved re settlement conference and we do not show up on any of their calendars. So now seeing Seeborg listing perhaps suggests ADR failed.

Was not showing on 26th

Key , when was that , Seeborgs calendar has only moved onto Jan in last few days I think

Would have preferred it to read settlement conference . Perhaps suggests nothing came out of ADR

Sorry , missed a line off
11:00AM
3:19-cv-01996-RS - Frontera Resources Corporation et al v. Hope et al
Telephonic
Further Case Mgmt Conference

Listing for Jan 9th
11:00AM
3:19-cv-01996-RS - Frontera Resources Corporation et al v. Hope et al
Telephonic

Good news that website is back , can’t see any changes . Brighter IR still shown , so judging by the between the lines wording of their email the other day looks like we may have actually paid a bill....or issued shares

At leat we can still see Liz Williamson....which is good as she is a bit of a looker ...in an American sort of way

Something thats just come into mind . In the various reports we have seen re the workers plight there has been no mention at all ( I think ) of the liquidation of FRCC / DTI / US litigation etc . I would have thought the reporters would have been all over those issues in relation to the story.
Only focus seems to be on contract with GG

Hi Mad ...yes you may well be correct , I have asked her which court / details / who’s suing who