menu

Caymans Court Lists

lse:frr

#1

Grand Court case lists for 7th-11th Jan are now issued plus an Appeal Court special sitting 14th-18th January. No mention of FRR v Hope as far as I can see!

https://www.judicial.ky/courts/cause-lists-all


#2

cheers hawk.


#3

Do we know if there are more hearings in the Grand Court for Jan? Do they convene every week?


#4

Yes they seem to be convened on a weekly basis. Court case lists are publicised on the Saturday prior to the following week I believe.


#5

So court case has to be in last 2 weeks if it’s going to happen in Jan.


#6

For the Grand court yes but it is probably a different set up for the Appeal Court that only convenes so many times a year!


#7

Court date set for 17th Jan 2019

https://www.judicial.ky/courts/cause-lists-all

Next Thursday


#8

Can only see up to the 14th ?


#9

A directions meeting only. Nothing significant. 30 mins.


#10

Listed for Jan 17th:


#11

duknweev…seems that way!

This from Kenirogas on LSE:

“Looks like its FRR vs Hope and " others” , so not seemingly OMF at this stage? That may also explain why M&C are not there as they were for OMF, rather than Hope as an individual? Maybe someone with a better memory can confirm.

It also looks to be a hearing fir the judge to guide both parties based on the evidence he has seem…from wiki/ us law…
“A directions hearing is a brief hearing in front of a judge or commissioner. It is a chance for the judge or commissioner to discuss the progress of the appeal and give ‘directions’ to the parties.”

So news of some sort end of next week?"


#12

LSE Chat for comments:

“From other posters we have Mourant representing us. On the 18 December there was present Mourant/CD&P/M&C but it appears M&C are not mentioned for 17 January if that means anything.”

Maples and Calder


Hopes Lawers!

“The hearing is for directions…no Hope lawyer may mean they are not defending and the judge will give guidance on the way ahead.”

Re: M&C are Hopes Lawers.

“That’s what is odd as they normally work for Frontera but we gave this case to Mourant and Maples are defending Hope…strange turn of events, but someone on ii alluded that Maples may have been working unknown to SN for Hope so they used a different lawyer to gather the evidence required which kind of makes sense and explains the absence of SN.”

“Regarding lawyers my guess is that both Outrider and FRR had the same team, Maple. To avoid any conflict FRR immediately chose the next biggest, Moruant. Possibly on a case only basis. (Outrider Offshore was first registered in the Caymans in 2004 – so well before FRR went to the Islands)”


#13

Part of the last post was from one of mine pre Xmas. Difficult to read what a 30 minute directions hearing is about - so best not to second guess

The fact that Hope and others are mentioned suggests that CD&P are acting for both Hope and Outrider - makes sense to use just one. Moruant of course for FRR.

Re Maples they are the appointed Caymans legal counsel for both Outrider (from 2004) and FRR (from 2011). FRR would have gone straight to Moruant on this one as they would not have wanted any risk of a “Chinese Wall” failing. Suspect Hope et al have now taken a similar view - probably only on this case. (Maples are still on the website as the FRR Cayman’s legal counsel).

Personally suspect that the 17th is procedural or for guidance purposes - doubt that we will get any news re the outcome unless it is a pre-cursor to a mediated outcome.


#14

Posted on the Facebook page

It is purely a procedural hearing to set a timetable for compliance with disclosure and inspection of relevant documents and exchange of witness statements. I would expect a trial date to be fixed as well. This means ofc that SH has filed a defence. It is possible for the parties to incorporate into the timetable an initial period to negotiate on a without prejudice basis with a view to resolving the case. Thats the position in this jurisdiction anyway


#15

Just wondering why everyone is saying that only 30 mins have been set aside for this hearing? I can’t see any reference to that in the court listings and there is nothing else allocated for Court 4 on that day nor to Justice Kawaley after the 11am start, so it could technically go on all day unless I have missed something.

I’m also puzzled by the withdrawal of Maples. It could be for the reason Devex suggests, but I could also speculate that Hope simply sacked Maples for not making him aware of the potential for a breach of fudiciary duty claim when he negotiated a seat on the board as part of the 2016 Loan Note Agreement. So far as I am aware (without revisiting the submitted documents) we do not know who represented each of the parties when the reivised agreement was drawn up. Surely Maples can’t have represented both parties - so maybe FRR used Mourant on that occasion and Hope/Outrider used Maples, and now it’s come home to roost for Hope? If so he might possibly have engaged Conyers, Dill & Pearman (CDP) to sue Maples for negligence in order to offset an adverse settlement against him in the breach of fudiciary duty and unlawful interference claim, and also to defend him and his funds against this claim.

Of course this is just speculation on my part, but I have a feeling that the session on the 17th might go on a lot longer than 30 mins.

Tot


#16

ToT…at this point no one on any of the BB’s know and of course speculation is rife. We will still just have to wait until those on the FRR BOD find it in themselves to issue some form of statement official or not! Maybe the court discussions / Judge on the 17th will actually prize out a way forward agreeable to all parties and one that can actually form part of an official release…I live in hope but the clock is certainly ticking now!

eyeson…chins up all!


#17

Comment on ToTs post from Kenirogas on LSE:

"Not sure the “hope sacks Maples” scenario works for me…he’s been director of enough companies to know all about FDs, I’m sure. His extremely careful use of emails (such as we have seen) is evidence enough of that for me.

I did, though, go back and look at the previous hearing, (https://www.judicial.ky/wp-content/uploads/courts/grand-court/GrandCourtList17thDecember2018(1).pdf). where it was listed as FRR & Others, with all 3 sets of lawyers present.

The current one, as we know, now specifically names Hope, and we have lost a set of lawyers.

Speculation only, but maybe Kawaley said to Hope " these two cases are obviously tied, and I dont want the faff of dealing with three sets of lawyers, so go sort your end out and get your bloody defence sorted this time"

Agree with tot in that the whole day seems to be on the slate for this hearing tho."


#18

Of course you are right TOT - the 30 minutes was a suggestion based on a “directions” hearing - and as the day is set aside could be much longer

In 2016 the hearings were of course US based (Galveston) - and Norton Rose acted for FRR, supported by Gibbs and Bruns - all Houston based. Not sure who represented Outrider - but of course Janet S. Casciato-Northrup acted as trustee on behalf of the loan note holders. No doubt each had their own lawyers facing off to the trustee.

So this time around the action is in the Caymans - instigated by FRR and different lawyers. I wonder what choices existed - and if the view is that the Caymans might be more supportive of the FRR viewpoint? Re Moruant I would be pretty sure of the need for FRR to avoid Maples on this issue - but there could be several interpretations around the Hope/OMF representation.

Also interesting to see what is going on in Debenhams - with Ashley blocking some debt restructuring proposals. Of course there is one fundamental difference - Ashley has 29.7% of the equity.


#19

One interesting thing about all these legal wranglings is that FRR don’t skimp on lawyers, only the top draw will do. And why not, when you are protecting a US$400M investment, and sitting on potentially the 6th largest O&G field in the world (18bn barrels oil, 202TCF gas). This combined with the revelation that the best operational fit for B12 has signed an NDA (i.e. BP).

Now, I’ve been sitting here since Xmas eve wondering what could Hopeless’s defence be for indiscriminately shooting down the financing proposals? To be fair to the Board, in SN’s affidavit, he does not contest the default but says the cause has been due to Hope’s vetos. And since he was removed, they have actually signed a term sheet with a NY Fund.

Separately , I agree with ToT’s comments that the meeting on Thursday could be more time consuming and constructive than we currently think (well, I certainly hope so, really depends on whether Hopeless wants to play ball). But if the Judge sees Hopeless for what he is i.e. not interested in getting his money back but trying to take over the company, then he could be in deep poo. And if we can see through him, why can’t the Honorable Judge?

JMO


#20

Should add that whilst in a courtroom this is really “in chambers” - presumably his chambers are a bit on the small side for all who will attend. Hence there will be no court papers to read afterwards.