Member Info for ZiggyZag

Immediate response from Tim ....”See what I can do “

Sent email to Tim YJ asking for info .....see what comes back ...news ....or brush off....think I sort of know what the answer will be .

Just going over Docs from Caymans Judge when he kicked out Hope ex parte injunction claim late Feb
Extracts below , ( sorry for quaility of copy) ...Hughes is their man

51. These contractual protections for Outrider's security appear on their face to be unusually strong indeed. Mr Hughes made somewhat vague allusions to steps which could be taken at the subsidiary level to erode the value of Outrider's security. However, he did not explain on what legal basis, if this did not infringe his client's existing contractual rights, such erosion worild be legally actionable.

52. This legal lack of substance was significant because Mr Hayden secondly submitted without any challenge that the Court corild not in this contractual context grant injunctive relief which went beyond the Defendants' existing contractual rights. He relied ripon the following statement of principle found in the judgment of Kay LJ in Medina HousingAssociation-v- Case [2002] EWCA Civ 2001:

“7 In my judgement this is to my understanding of an iniunction in such
circumstances. An iniunction is granted in order to prevent.future breaches of
contract. The court has no power to grant arr inivmction which provides to a party that are not contractual rights unless a claiin in tort can.proper[y
made by that persorr. It is not suggested nor could it be suggested, respondent would be entitled to an infimction in tort in respect of these matters. 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 grarrt of an injunction. The remedy in relation to a breach of contract will include an iniunction to protect future breaches. It would extend ttp to the time when the possession order became

So re our judges reference of 7 above :
Like to think that means because debt was called in the conditions of the agreement ceased and therefore we could transfer the assets without being in breech of the terms .
Might be in breech of liquidation law ..... but possibly one down at least .

One of the names below has this guy as a friend ....https://www.facebook.com/lado.charkviani
Shows himself as employed by “Frontera Eastern Georgia “
Very active on posing , last one two hrs ago....comes across as someone who would keep his profile up to date .
Going back over his posts ....no...nothing re whats happening in job....just full of anti Russian stuff

Should have written......Can Hope have any INFLUENCE with liquidator.....

out today , only a couple of entries ...not us
Also
Been referenced a number of times about the assets being transferred out of the company and will Hope challenge that move , probably stating the obvious but I would assume that is now out of his hands and it is for the liquidator to decide if the move should be challenged . Can Hope have any input with liquidator , be naive to think he won’t try , but .....

Insolvency practitioners’  fiduciary duties are defined through several fundamental principles. These are as follows:
* Integrity
* Objectivity
* Professional competence and due care
* Confidentiality
* Professional Behaviour
The wait continues

Dave
The 12 month period is in relation to DoS saying all creditors can be paid in that timeframe

Think our guys submitted it late May

Don’t think its accepted as such , no one can say no to it , it has to be done and submitted with Caymans Companies Registry as part of Vol Insol process.
But once done , Liquidator or creditor , at any time ( I think , nothing shown in Caymans Company Law rules shows time limit ) can ask for court supervision as in Rules 131/132 shown in my previous post

We know thar DoS has been lodged and we are now waiting to see if its been accepted . Not sure really if thats the correct phrase . Its not accepted and then we have 12 months in the clear , it has to be made / lodged but then it seems at anytime until companies affairs are wound up , 131 below as in Caymans Company Law can happen .
I suppose that B below would be the criteria for augment if they wanted to put us under court supervision soon
Hopefully we won’t see this requested , but until the finish of the saga it seems it will be a looming possibility.
131. When a resolution has been passed by a company to wind up voluntarily, the liquidator or any contributory or creditor may apply to the Court for an order for the continuation of the winding up under the supervision of the Court, notwithstanding that the declaration of solvency has been made in accordance with section 124, on the grounds that-
132. (1)
(a) the company is or is likely to become insolvent; or
(b) the supervision of the Court will facilitate a more effective, economic or expeditious liquidation of the company in the
interests of the contributories and creditors

Arsenal , no problem bud
Yes get what yo say and have fully understood that element in this saga .
I am just trying to get my head round all the moves that have been / are in play from both sides .
I am no expert in this area ( as you will clearly know ) and have wondered from the onset why Voluntary as opposed to Compulsory liquidation , as the route chosen gives us a lifeline .
Presume there must be a procedural reason .

Arsenal
Are you referring to my post

Should read ...as on the face of it , VL allows us time

What confuses me is that I think law states ...Board of directors pass resolution for VL , who were they , if our men why ....if instigated by Hope why not Compulsory Liquidation, as this way on the face of it allows us time

My understanding of situation is FRCC have been put in Voluntary Liquidation i.e. an orderly run down of the companies affairs
As part of this process directors have signed DOS which states that all creditors will be paid within 12 months .
The declaration provides evidence that Compulsory Winding up is not necessary.
The directors of FRCC now have no control / involvement with the company .

Evening to all on the night shift , I did a couple of posts yesterday but still non the wiser , so perhaps you folk can help me .
Question , re the directors statement of solvency that our men have made .....is it made on behalf of FRCC or FRC

Extraordinary Gazette published today . Re final meetings , a number of entries but our ...or is it soft lads.....company not listed.

Hi Free...still confused , surly as former directors of a Ltd Co they have no liability to its debts , thats the benefit of being Ltd .
Add below taken from Grant Thornton:
In Cayman Islands voluntary liquidation, a DofS is required to be sworn by each person who was a director of the company on the date on which its voluntary winding up was commenced (Companies Winding Up Rules, 2018 (CWR) O.14, R1(1))
Above says to me that would be after our men were ousted .

Also comes to mind ...if they are no longer controlling the company being wound up ,as its in the hands of soft lad , well their declaration is saying something like......
“ this company which we no longer have any controls over what it does and not do , will be able to pay its debts in 12 months we guarantee that on fear of paying big fine /go to jail”.......
I understand that what is being indicated is outrider will be paid out of revenue of another Frontera Co but just struggling with this Dof S bearing in mind they are out of the company for which they declared it ....I think!

Hi Sycirc , thanks for response..
I thought from documents and posts on here that we had filed a Directors Statement of Solvency in regards to the one being wound up in Caymans.....the one we have transferred the assets FROM . Topic of many posts over last few weeks has been ....lets hope liquidators accept that and it will give us 12 months breathing space / stop liquidation of that Caymans ltd Co.
If my outline of above is correct then that is led me to think If our men have been ousted from that Co as directors how can they submit Directors SoS.

I am getting confused with all the court papers we have seen

If Zaza and SN are no longer directors of the company being liquidated ( thought they were ousted as part of the process) how can they issue valid statement of solvency ?

Are we talking another company or are they still directors of the one in liquidation ...or is it me being thick

I am getting confused with all the court papers we have seen particularly with this question :
If Zaza and SN are no longer directors of the company being liquidated ( thought they were ousted as part of the process) how can they issue valid statement ?
Are we talking another company or are they still directors

New issue of Extraordinary Gazette published today .
They are interim issues published between the regular fortnightly one

From the web site “ Extraordinary Gazettes are published in cases of special urgency”.

Couple of dozen winding up and final meeting notices ........but .....no mention of us in the issue .