Menu
Close

California continued

lse:frr

#21

Taffy52 is currently uploading the full Court Order on LSE and can be read on the LSE BB. Grim reading!

Taffy52 says this "The court order denying the injunction has been posted in California. Unfortunately it’s very grim reading. The motion regarding monetary sanctions is not mentioned but the judge is extremely dismissive of FRR’s legal argument. Basically he doesn’t believe there is any merit in it at all nor any realistic chance of success in the breach of fiduciary duties law suit. I’m not sure quite where we go from here but can’t see the court option going any further. Sorry if this sounds negative but being brutally honest.

Plan B and hopefully there is one, needs to come into effect. I will copy the order on here later this morning…can’t at the moment as site not working on iPad. If there is any good news on the horizon hopefully it will emerge very soon. Good luck to us all."


#22

The last section of the court order posted by Taffy52 reads…“The motion fares no better under the remaining Winter factors. First, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested injunctive relief. As discussed above, even if an injunction were issued against the current Defendants, that would do nothing to stop the liquidation. The balance of the equities similarly do not favor Plaintiffs. As noted in the prior TRO order, it is a cause of considerable concern that while the Complaint in this case appears to have been filed before the Cayman Islands action was resolved, Plaintiffs failed to disclose the existence of that pending action. (Order at 4:12-14.) Indeed, the Cayman Islands court saw fit to discharge the preliminary injunction in that action based on its finding that Plaintiffs’ case had “no real prospects of success and/or fails to raise a serious question to be tried.” (Dkt. 23-10, Cornwell Decl., Ex. G at ¶ 47(b).) Plaintiffs’ argument that they thought the Cayman Islands action was irrelevant to this case and that if Defendants disagreed they would so inform the Court, (Mot. at 12 n.1), is disingenuous. Plaintiffs had the obligation under Local Rule 3-13 to disclose material facts to the Court and sought the issuance of temporary injunctive relief with no notice to Defendants. In addition to their failure to disclose, Plaintiffs’ failure to take responsibility for the required disclosure gives further evidence of their unclean hands and lack of entitlement to the balance of the equities.4 Finally, neither party provides arguments regarding the public interest prong, but it is clear that the public has little interest in injunctive relief that cannot stop the liquidation. Indeed, public interest appears to weigh the other way: protecting the right of secured creditors to collect their collateral. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction is denied.”


#23

I think we’re done with Cali courts now. It’s back to the Caymans to see what the next move is. At least Hope is off the board and so far it does appear as though the liquidators have not applied for court supervision so maybe they are satisfied that FRR is solvent and likely to pay it’s debts within 12 months.


#24

Chastising is the only would i can use “unclean hands” WOW the only crumb of comfort is they’ve signed the declaration of solvency.

Plan B indeed and the assumption these court actions were a delaying tactic.


#25

To be honest, I take great comfort in the statement of solvency…


#26

TMH does it state they have signed the declaration of solvency? I missed that in court doc. Where does it say that?


#27

The voluntary liquidators must apply to the Cayman Islands court for an order that the liquidation continue under court supervision, unless the directors have signed a declaration of solvency within 28 days of the commencement of the liquidation. Companies Law § 124(1) (2018 Revision) (Cayman Is.). Once the liquidation is supervised by the court, it may appoint an official liquidator who has the same broad powers as described for voluntary liquidators. Companies Law §§ 105(1), 110. Defendants represented at oral argument that the directors have submitted a declaration of solvency to the voluntary liquidators. This does not deprive the liquidators’ of their authority to continue with the liquidation, however, as they may still apply to the Cayman Islands court for the court to supervise the liquidation if they believe either: (1) the company is or is likely to become insolvent; or (2) court supervision is necessary to facilitate a more effective, economic, or expeditious liquidation in the interests of the contributories and creditors. Companies Law § 131 (2018 Revision) (Cayman Is.).


#28

What I’m unsure of and what a legal eagle can clarify is, if the declaration is acceptable by Maples does this buy FRR 12 months? I think it does but I’m not 100%.

All still to play for, Hope will never get B12 and I now think plan B is well underway.


#29

The whole Cayman process at least bought FRR 5 months to prepared for plan B. They took a chance moving to Cali, unfortunately Hope seized that chance to push the button on Maples but at least it got Hope off the board and this may prove critical.

Chin up lads I honestly still think this will come good. I think the recent BP activity is BP planning to drill a new gas well on B12, this at least keeps the Georgian government sweet and it may be the Georgian gov that proves key in this mess. If BP are working with FRR then the gov don’t want to upset BP.


#30

So the tricky point for Hope is that if Maples accept this declaration then FRR probably have 12 months to get things going at the well head and at the corporate level.

If Maples don’t buy the declaration then the powers move to the court and Hope would lose some control of the situation. With no new listings in the Cayman for a court order then maybe Maples have accepted Steve’s declaration. Worth noting that if Steve misrepresents the declaration it’s a criminal offence.

Honestly, I think we’re going to come through this. Worth noting that IG still have not paid out to shorts so expect more bile from the dullards and social misfits or should I say SPIVS!!!

Anyway, enough from me for now.


#31

Isn’t this judgement just pertaining to the request for an preliminary injunction?
Don’t we have another hearing with a jury at a later date?

ATB
WR


#32

walrog, yes we may have but the judges comments are very telling. He is basically saying we have little chance of success for the fiduciary duties case. I’m not totally surprised. What matters is the liquidation which the Cali court cannot stop anyway. Has Steve’s declaration bought FRR 12 months? Maybe.


#33

It’s obviously got to be Plan B but what’s frustrating is there has not been a shred of evidence as yet to suggest breach of fiduciary duties and thereby backup ZM comments about never going to court without being absolutely sure of winning. Will the case now continue? There has been no discovery I presume? Declaration of Solvency submitted is absolutely the only crumb available at the moment. We knew the request for injunctive relief was going to be denied because there was nothing new coming forward and I for one was doubtful as to Cali Court jurisdiction in the liquidation matter.
Was and is the court action all just a painful side show? Taffy just spotted the solvency statement in the docs he uploaded, well spotted on here. I hope this means we can start to disregard the whole court fiasco and now wait for the facts to emerge as to where we stand financially going forward. The court story has spun us all in a whirlwind of bullsh.t I believe. Signed declarations of solvency are legally binding so we have to assume the document holds merit.


#34

Certainly the Cali Court action could now proved to have been only a side show but I would well imagine an extremely costly one for FRR. Someone is presumeably able to foot the bills!


#35

Good post pop, I take a great deal of comfort that Maples haven’t elevated the liquidation (voluntary) through to the Caymans to oversee. They may have been waiting for the court action in Cali before they did this. I see the next 7 days as critical.

If there’s no news from the Caymans during the next week or two I think FRR could have a free run to get things underway at B12. A juicy new gas drill and relist would be nice, especially for those that are short. Dare I say tick tock?

Great news is Hope cannot block funding.


#36

I believe the Cayman court listings for next week was published on the web page on Friday and there was no hearing listed for FRR next week. So no Cayman action in next seven days for sure.

Let’s hope that what ZM meant by winning was something bigger than these barely legible and tediously painful exchanges in California and The Caymans. My head needs a defrag. GLA


#37

Not the only one! :confounded::scream:


#38

Chin up lads

what-is-a-declaration-of-solvency-in-an-mvl-procedure
directors are required to swear to their company’s solvent nature by signing a declaration of solvency. This verifies the fact that the company is in a position to settle its outstanding liabilities (along with any interest) within a maximum period of 12 months following the beginning of the liquidation

The directors may have played a masterstroke moving the case to the Cali courts and with Hope resigning. The directors may have bought shareholders 12 months. Get a loan in escrow with a guarantee to pay off OMF’s liabilities and we could be back in business in a few months. If Hope was still on the board the directors could never have got this statement signed as I believe all directors have to agree.

Bring it on!!! The directors stand with us. Resist with a gas drill with BP in play and it’s game on again.


#39

So as suspected the whole charade was a delaying tactic all along.


#40

Haha yeah and mugs like you booster may have fallen for it.