Menu
Close

California continued

lse:frr

#1

I thought I would create a new thread as the last one is getting ridiculously long and I’m tired of scrolling down to the bottom on my iPhone.
Still little to stay at this juncture other than things are certainly getting squeaky!

Still waiting for our black swan if we have one…


#2

Dr, rather than scrolling if you go into main discussion page (all co’s) and touch the icon on the far left of the poster it will take you to that post (the last one) hope that helps


#3

Courtesy of taffy from the LSE BB…

”Preliminary Injunction DeniedToday 02:47Full docket text for document 40:

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard Seeborg: Motion Hearing held on 6/6/2019 re [36] MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by Frontera International Corporation, Frontera Resources Corporation. Plaintiff may file a brief regarding monetary sanctions by 6/14/19. Preliminary Injunction Denied. Court to issue an order.
Total Time in Court: 1 hour. Court Reporter: Jo Ann Bryce.

Plaintiff Attorney: William DeClercq.
Defendant Attorney: Gregg Ficks, John Cornwell, Ross Parker.

(This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (cl, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 6/6/2019) Modified on 6/6/2019 (cl, COURT STAFF).”

Not completely surprised with the above decision, as liquidation proceedings have already started in the Cayman’s (different jurisdiction) and only relates to Frontera Resources Caucuses. But still not the news we wanted to read. So, they spent around 1hr discussing, let see the full court comments especially concerning “…Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities …and Plaintiff may file a brief regarding monetary sanctions by 6/14/19.”

Still think they have a strong case on ‘breach of fiduciary duties’ and remember this is what the case is about. So does the submission on ‘monetary sanction’ imply a strong case as the Judge given the nod on that? In the meantime, I assume the liquidation process continues concerning FRCC. So what will come first, decision on this court case or liquidators trying to legally reverse the PSA farm-out with another entity?

Finally, a message for our friend ‘regdik’ on LSE BB…can he make some friendly calls to his ex-buddies at BP regarding the ramp up of activities in Georgia (who & why?).


#4

Monetary sanctions is the stand out phrase here as the injunction was all but lost anyway, so why can the plaintiff (FRR) request financial sanctions if there isn’t more to this? Maybe the judge was tied due the Cayman case but agrees to penalties against Hope.

A little more to think about and discuss and just a week until we find out what the monetary sanction mean and are about.


#5

Also think, the 1hr spent in the Court, FRR Legal team have tried to strengthen their case on the fiduciary breach with ‘Supplemental Memorandum of Points and Authorities’, which has convinced the Judge for the Plaintiffs to submit their claim for loss… Let’s hope it is more than $56mln! One way or another, it seems one of these parties will be wiped out…


#6

This doesn’t look like it’s over just yet however we need a more professional opinion on monetary sanctions to formulate what is really going on here.


#7

Would have been more worried if it said Defendants instead of Plaintiffs…”PLAINTIFFS may file a brief regarding monetary sanctions by 6/14/19.”

This may have something to do with ‘hanky panky’ behaviour from Hopes lawyers on the Discovery Order (not the first time they have tried to ‘sail close to the wind’). Anyway I found this on the net: ‘The court may impose a monetary sanction ordering that one engaging in the misuse of the discovery process, or any attorney advising that conduct, or both pay the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that conduct.

I suspect we will know all when the transcript of the hearing/Order is released.


#8

More like monetary sanctions are going to be imposed on FRR and they are being given a chance to argue against it or how they intend to pay.


#9

It may be that Hope did not comply with the first Discovery Order (granted in October/November?) and this was brought to the attention of Judge Seeborg in this hearing, hence requiring FRR to submit a brief for Monetary Sanction (detailing costs for the extra work/attorney fees etc)?


#10

From Oopsi on the other site:
'Disappointed but not at all surprised by the injunction ruling. Entirely expected. I’m not sure it is of any real significance now in any event. That’s the first line of defence breached. The real test is what the liquidators do in relation to the movement of the asset. The motion for Plaintiffs to file a brief regarding monetary sanctions is interesting. I’ve done some digging this morning and think I have found the relevant part of the Californian Code of Civil Procedure that deals with this https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/code-of-civil-procedure/ccp-sect-128-7.html.

There appears to be some shennaningans that have been going on in terms of the way Hope’s case was put forward – whether that is factual inaccuracies, something more sinister or otherwise. That’s sparked the request for monetary sanctions by us. It is a side issue but not something you want being made against you…’

Remember, Oopsi is the son of a high court judge, so his interpretations should carry some weight.


#11

I think Oopsi’s post is one of the more interesting today - not just because he is a solicitor. So you can interpret this latest twist in one of at least two ways.

First a desperate last ditch attempt to stave off the evil day. Entirely possible of course but there comes a point where even the most hardened campaigners say enough is enough, and try to minimise their losses.

Or another stage in a technical process that is being played out in order to enable some other event or third party involvement to finally kick in. And of course the motion for monetary sanctions has to be evidentially based - and if you follow the link there is a time limit for submission and review of this evidence - with both the plaintiff and their lawyers at risk if the evidence is deemed mischievous. So it looks like around 3 weeks for this next bit to progress.

But as Oopsi has said - all probably a side show. The insolvency response, the legitimacy of the asset transfer and the fudicuiary claim being the main shows in town.

But just perhaps this is also part of a process designed to enable some other event to materialise, and I simply do not believe - with the reward potential being so high - that the likely third parties are simply sitting watching all this without some behind scenes involvement and manipulation.

We continue to wait - and in my view there is absolutely nothing at this stage that we can or should be doing to interfere.


#12

I think BPs recently planned activity in Georgia could be related to some kind of potential drilling activity in Georgia. The fact this has not reported by the usual media outlets or has been “advertised” or promoted by the Georgian government may suggest the activity is related to B12 and a new gas well.

Pure speculation by me but if I’m right it’s a massive vote of confidence from BP of where this is going.

Ref the court case. Well as you suggest Devex, we’ll just have to let it run it’s course. It does seem that FRR have a plan B which is already in play with the removal of all or part of the asset from one of its subsidiaries.

The monetary sanctions is interesting, not sure , at this point, if it’s positive or negative to FRR. Will the full write from the proceedings written up and made public?

Best wishes to all holders.


#13

I think we might be making some big assumptions regarding BP in Georgia as we aren’t the only ones active in this area. Time will tell but the court proceedings could take longer than I thought and remain frustrating…back to the bunker with my bottle of black swan.

All fingers and toes still crossed


#14

Quite right Dr, they are big assumptions from me. However, it does seem like BP are setting up a remote base possibly related to drilling, if this is the case I think it would have been shouted from the roof tops by the Georgians. That is unless it’s related to B12 which is critically sensitive.

I think FRR have a plan B and it’s currently being implemented.

I don’t expect a peep (offically) from FRR untill all legal processes are completed. As Devex says we, as shareholders, should let the legal process run it’s course.

I’m actually quite positive I may see some or all of my investment back.

Best wishes.


#15

If B12 really is potentially a giant gas field it doesn’t surprise me that BP are making a move.

From recent press (the beep) we know BP are prepared to operate in seemingly “controversial” areas.

Just to add 250m (alledgly) for a stake in an offshore gas field is massive. It would seem that BP are flush with cash and not afraid to speculate in gas fields. The Yakaar-1 flowed at between 15-30mmcfd and the area is reported to hold around 15tcf of gas, sound familiar? Ud2 was predicted to have rates of 15-30mmcfd.

So if FRR have legally technically moved some of the asset away from Maples there’s no reason to think BP would not want to crack on with things.

If my assumptions are correct that’s a massive vote of confidence of where this will ultimately go.


#16

Well thefozzer
If I had a leach sucking on my leg I would want to burn it off before I got back to catching all the swamp frogs :frog:
The question now is
How many frogs :frog: in the swamp?
I can feel it all coming back on again fella!
Where’s that damn black swan emoji?


#17

I actually thought that someone from the forum was actually going to CA to watch all this unfold !! I’m not sure how highly qualified this Oopsi guy is, but just because he is the son of a judge doesn’t qualify him for silk. The lawyer representing FRR in CA is supposed to be top dog and so far he hasn’t pulled anything off.

And regarding BP and Georgia, I would think they are staying well clear of FRR at the moment. There are quite a few others out there with no skeletons in their closets.


#18

Jay,

The oil business is a murky world which extends to powerful political shadow figures and beyond. BP will have no issues with trying to gain an advantage at B12, a gas field which could be a super mega field. A tiny investment fund “trying it on” won’t put them off.

FRR have seemingly ring fenced the asset with their alleged “farm out” deal. I just don’t see Hope getting the asset now, he may get some of his money back but if the Cali case goes to trial he could be liable for vast sums far exceeding his loan.

I honestly think we’re going to be alright. I wouldn’t listen to the shite on Advfn as their agenda is very different to ours.


#19

Well said Fozzie. I’m afraid I’ve either been too ill or too busy catching up with other pressing matters to contribute to this forum lately but what really sickens me is the gloating of TW (aka Sweet Karolina2) and his odious band of acolytes on Advfn. Some of the stuff they’ve come out with lately really shows what despicable people they are, taking delight in the misery of those who have invested more than they can afford to lose in FRR. The whole forum should be taken down imo as it has just become a stinking cesspit of the lowest forms of human life.

We might yet lose all our investment but with the transfer of the assets into other vehicles and the growing but unpublished interest of Big Oil in Georgia it ain’t over yet for sure, and if it does come our way I will enjoy that schadenfreude moment, but don’t expect any apologies from the likes of Winnifrith who is using this case to promote the virtues of a subscription to his odious publication as well as gratifying his massive ego.
ATB,
Tot


#20

Taffy just posted his thoughts on the latest document. It’s “grim” reading so I’m assuming plan b is now in motion. This whole process has bought FRR a good 6 months to get things going and this may have been part of the plan all along.

With Hope now off the board FRR can apply for funds. I’m assuming funds can put held in escrow with a view to paying Hope off should this be a possibility.

So we now move into a new phase of proving solvency and committing to paying Hope back in 12 months. Maples cannot liquidate a solvent company.

All eyes now on the Caymans to see Hopes next move.