Member Info for ZiggyZag

Bag
No , they are still silent

Hi CF73
Re my post , I had in my mind the reference by auditor to more than one hearing which I referred to the other day , which did not fit into how I thought Arbi process worked . So to help me get a handle looked at SCC rules again which led me to lay out some timeline as per my post today .
No idea if Arbi has concluded but it clearly goes against the normal procedure re time if not . However as stated in article 43 extensions can be granted and if the wording of Auditor report is correct then maybe one had been granted. Another more negative thought ...has time limit been extended because the Liquidator has become involved.
Having said the above Mads posts portray a good theory re Arbi being abandoned / concluded without any negative impact on us.

Been looking again at SCC rules and timescales re Arbitration .

Article 8 Commencement of arbitration
Arbitration shall be deemed to commence on the date the SCC receives the Request for Arbitration......we know that happened early 18.....

Article 22 Referral to the Arbitral Tribunal
When the Arbitral Tribunal has been appointed and the Advance on Costs has been paid, the Secretariat shall refer the case to the Arbitral Tribunal.

Article 29 Written submissions
(1) Within the period determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, the Claimant shall submit a Statement of Claim which shall include, unless previously submitted etc etc .............Auditors report says that was July 18.....
(2) Within the period determined by the Arbitral Tribunal, the
Respondent shall submit a Statement of Defence which shall include, unless previously submitted etc etc .........Auditors report says that was Sept 18

Article 43 Time limit for final award
The final award shall be made no later than six months from the date the case was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal pursuant to Article 22. The Board may extend this time limit upon a reaso- ned request from the Arbitral Tribunal or if otherwise deemed necessary.

Seems that sometime between early 18 and July 18 after various prelims that have to take place within the process the SCC Board referred case to tribunal as in Article 22 which is governed by Article 43 re timelines.

So Assuming July 18 we are nearly 14 months from when the actual Arbitration part started and 7 months over the normal time limit for final decision as in Article 43 .

Earsbern
I cant find it at present but was there not an order from Seeborg setting them into Mediation ADR with the timescales in line with CF’s post .

Bit confused re arbitration. The final sentence in auditors report re FRR litigation reads.....
.. The proceedings are in progress, next hearings are expected to take place in October 2019...
The Arbi rules / process reads as though its a one hit procedure i.e. submit claim , submit defence / counterclaim , Arbitrator appointed , ONE hearing , then decision with no appeal .
Cannot see anything that indicates multiple hearings as indicated above .

Court website is showing Judge Seeborg’s calendar and listing his cases up to Nov 22nd , fairly busy schedule, no entries for us .

Goit
Liquidation has recently been put under the supervision of the court , citing speedier wind up , lack of back up to DOS and investigation re asset transfer, as reasons for request .

A number of folk on here tonight forgot to put on their big school long trousers

Was looking for Hulls initial ...reveal the news ...post of yesterday , but all of his prior to 16.19 posts seem to have disappeared ...maybe its my machine.
I have not seen the tweets etc so cannot comment
However seems he is in Shatner’s band of brothers .Shatner hit us in July with the post that he enquired with Georgian Drilling Club on their Facebook page as to how FFR were doing , and got the reply ...no work on the ground since start of year and no pay for employees since Dec, or something similar . What struck this board at the time was why after getting such a damming reply he did not follow up with ...who... what...why..etc , he just accepted it without any follow up questions , how many of us would have done that to a contact who seemingly had info and was willing to share it .
He also said that he was in daily contact with an oil guy in Georgia for months , think he said BP , but failed to answer why he thought his oil man contact had not told him this earth shattering news
I exchanged a number of posts with Shatner at the time including one where I wrote regarding his GDC guy
....Your post on Monday / Tuesday says” source is sound” ....post today referring to same source says... “don’t hold much credence there”.....
To be honest I don’t hold much credence to what he or his buddies post , all seems very similar to the July stunt.
. They may be factual but maybe not in the negative way they they seem to want portray them re FFR ...I assume they have an agenda.

Oopsi

Yes looks like you are correct , I was monitoring Court Listener site and mistakenly took Doc entry date as serving date .
Return of Service Executed — Document #8
District Court, S.D. Texas
Docket Number: 4:19-cv-02714
Date Filed: September 20th, 2019
As you say Hope should get rollover but will he pursue it .... clearly a time lag between action and Doc’s entry so fingers crossed .

CF
Struggle with that one bud ......and it does fly in the face of Mads theory

Hi Oopsi
I have down as tomorrow , assuming it was served on 20th Sept ...i.e 20 days not counting day of service

Cf73
Agree your comments re Ukraine interview , and it was a welcome lift to all of us

There is no valid reason I can think of why the interview could not be posted on website on day of publication.

Without the sleuthing of Chris ( I think, sorry if someone else ) unearthing interview we would be none the wiser .

Hi Bezzy
New solicitors ...lol
I can accept not being given information that may be sensitive , but what I find hard to accept is not replying AT ALL to ANY enquiry .
Earlier in the year when they realised this was becoming very complicated and protracted they could have put out a message to us saying .....sorry folks we have been advised not to , etc etc , so we will not be answering any questions at all ....but no , we didn’t even warrant that curtesy .
Even now they could do that , any acknowledgement from the company that we actually exist with a reassurance that we have not been cast off and forgotten would be welcome .

I think most folk fully understand lack of info on litigation / arbitration and sensitive info linked to those events .
But
The company cannot be excused for total blackout of communications. There are many of us including shareholder group, who have emailed company for comment , info etc , and no one has even had an acknowledgement of receipt , never mind an answer .
I would prefer to have a response that said f#*k off ....rather than silence , though I suppose silence is basically saying the same .
Assuming the Co is still operating I cannot think of any negative reason that they cannot respond in a professional way to requests for info/ comment .I am sure they have the skill to reply where appropriate with a .....very sorry cannot comment on that request...I hope you understand ....stay with us ..etc....or give an answer to question if not sensitive ...but to totally ignore ...arrrrgggg
What really frustrates me is even when they put something into the public domain in another country e.g Ukraine interview , they did not make us aware via website , they just ignored us and left us to yet again find out for ourselves .
I do wonder what we shareholders who have funded the Co , have done to deserve to be treated in such a disrespectful way .
What would be the situation if we were still listed , they would HAVE to give at least minimal info on all that is going on to satisfy AIM rules , clearly re the delist the Co is being opportunist re communications.
To be totally ignored is shameful and very unprofessional .
As a shareholder I will continue support the Co cause ...1 my investment ...2 because I want to see those who wish me financial harm suffer.
However I would like some corporate respect !

Bag
Go on then

JimSlade
Did you manage to dig out your email correspondence re arbitration that we discussed last week , think you were going to send to shareholders group

Thanks Mad
But was not the Ukraine interview some 6 weeks or so after petition was presented

Hi Mad
But why cite ...lack of DOS backup and asset removal in petition to be put before the judge ....why not just ....speedier liquidation etc .
If they are not interested in DOS backup and not intending to look into asset issue have they not mislead the court in their petition

Hi Mad
Thanks for that insight in answer to my last post to you.
I am still wondering though why our men failed to back up DOS .If they knew funds were in / coming in ...enough by your calcs to pay of everyone off within 12 months or indeed sooner , why not demonstrate to help speed up process.
They chose not to which has contributed to court supervision order.
Also if the thinking is release of info re production / income in Ukraine interview prompted DTI’s action ....wasn’t the interview release some 6/ 7 weeks AFTER court supervision was petitioned.
My big worry is the other reason DTI stated ....transfer of only asset ....I know from our past discussions that you are fairly sanguine over that but I worry it points that way .
To explain your theory that everything is now in place for settlement hence DTI seeking supervision for speedy conclusion you highlighted following from insolvency rules
.......... 2) court supervision is necessary to facilitate a more effective, economic, or expeditious liquidation in the interests of the contributories and....

I fear another possibility .....that as with DOS , liquidator is being stone walled by FRR in his efforts to assess exactly what were the circumstances/ legality of asset removal and so has been forced to seek the help of the court to achieve as per clause above ..... a more effective and economic or expeditious liquidation ......
If that is the case the court will now help him unravel actions with the possible potential of voiding transfer depending on the timings of it.
The court if needed is able to put our men under serious legal pressure to reveal their actions . Caymans has good cooperation protocols with US courts , particularly with debtors, not so sure about Georgia though.
Finally I will put my tin hat on before saying ......we are giving a lot of credence to what Zaza said in the Ukraine interview re production / income and fitting that into theories . Another theory could be he was trying to demonstrate to a potentially sceptical audience in country that we are a company with substance and a future in spite of all that is going on. However I hope he was stating fact and just not saying what he thought needed to be said in order to achieve his aim .
We have seen no firm evidence in support his figures but as in Gipps post earlier today and yours previously there is plenty of circumstantial to support view of income coming in . It is interesting we have seen nothing more from the Mourant claim after six weeks or so , maybe that has now been paid.
.