Charles Jillings, CEO of Utilico, energized by strong economic momentum across Latin America. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Part of it has been published on the judiciary website today
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/processos/240043561/processo-n-2213966-5120198260000-do-tjsp?ref=goto
Please find the new link below.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SmdTcsFgXFCZsAB3n5stLvIKExycxKMQ/view?usp=sharing
Please let me know if it's not viewable.
Thanks @Dallasdaz. I will do that.
@FrankieH - I did too.
@Cause17...In the web based google drive, right click on the file you wish to share, select 'get shareable link', then change the option from 'Restricted' to 'Anyone with the link'...then select copy link and paste it as normal.
@Obs - Oh. I did not realise as when I checked to make sure it works, it did since I have a google account. I just loaded the file onto my google drive and shared the link that was offered to share. I will wait for @Dallasdaz and in the meantime google it to see how I can share.
@Cause. Meant to say thanks for doing this, but you've not shared it correctly - looks like you need a google account to access. Perhaps @Dallas can let you know how to share without this restriction if you can't figure it out?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SmdTcsFgXFCZsAB3n5stLvIKExycxKMQ/view?usp=sharing
Google/MS translation for the judgement made on 7th of July.
Link shared by Ob.
I'd rather people didn't repost anything I've written, so won't be giving any permissions.
I suppose I had better clarify: You never need permission from me or anyone else *on here* to post anything that is publicly available, regardless of who spotted it, *though you may need permission from the content owner*.
cause what l posted in layman terms is that there would be no movement until all parties agree terms proforma " if all is well we will & should get a rns by monday, well done & G/l
Good summary @Cause. You never need permission from me or anyone to post anything that is publicly available, regardless of who "spotted it".
@Maddog - The courts have already approved the sale of ore up to net 10$ million dollars. The objection to this by secured creditors was rejected as well. If I remember correctly, one the reasons given on judgement was that the approved amount is a relatively a fraction of what is in stock and doesn't effect significantly the guarantees held against the ore stock. 10% of the net proceeds were to be set aside as payment to secured creditors as well.
Also one of the concerns raised by secure creditors was whether Cadence can really execute what they promise on the JRP. And my line of thinking is that shipping of the Iron ore will go some way to show that they can indeed run the operation to meet the plans set out hence weaken this concern raised by secured creditors. I don't know if I am imagining this or it was actually said the ruling (I think I am imagining :') ).
I agree with you that anything above this net amount would need an agreement in place or further approval by court as mentioned in the ruling on the case from 7th.
Also referring to that ruling, it answers the questions of fairness/legality of the JRP by saying that the financial terms of the JRP are agreed by the creditors and as there is majority consensus to the plans set out in the JRP, they are fair and valid. Also talks about the risk analysis, which it leaves for the creditors to make, on agreeing to the plan proposed by Cadence vs bankruptcy. It also states that during those negotiations it was left for Cadence to make the case for the deal proposed (the JRP plan) being better for creditors than bankruptcy and majority were convinced.
It was a good read. I hope to post the translation of it here, with permission of Ob as he shared the link.
cause/ the ships are ramping"/there will be no movement of ore until all side agree with guarantees proforma in principle,
lets see what happens tomorrow, as l told you 9 days ago,
@Obs - Yes. Clarity would be good for everyone.
But personally, I am more confident on this after the shipping news and reading the link you shared yesterday.
Also the ruling says pay or guarantee payment. Payment can be guaranteed with an agreement being reached or shipping of ore wouldn't it?
Hopefully all this is clarified soon.
@Cause I personally think @Kiran should clarify the situation around the R$11m as it looks like our ponderings might be spooking some...
The current situation as we have been told from the BoD, as I see it, is that the courts have declared we can sell the ore to pay the historic labour costs, and going by the harbour schedule this looks like it will occur towards the beginning of August.
In the meantime, we are continuing to broker a deal with the banks which may or may not finalise one way or another before the sale of the ore. If it happens before the sale of the ore, then I presume we increase our stake from 0% to 20% and our $2.5m currently in escrow can be used to pay the historic labour costs before the beginning of August.
Ob.
@obs +@tomcat
Is it this one?
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/processos/34181822/processo-n-1024181-2020158260100-do-tjsp
Are you referring to this @tomcat:
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/processos/101150396/processo-n-0000432-6820165080209-do-trt-8
Do you have a link to more up to date information?
TC. Is that good or bad?
page 735... looking like they are now entering the enforcement stage and they’re going after assets to pay the creditors... seizures...
I finally managed to read through the judgement Obs.
You are correct. The only part to which the judge has concerns on the JRP is monetary correction. Which is why it is partially dismissed rather than fully dismissed I guess (i.e - All other aspects of JRP are deemed legal and valid)
I will try to read upon monetary correction index in Brazil (brief look up says Brazil, Israel and one other country uses monetary correction). I would appreciate anyone helping me out in understanding it,
To be clear: I don't understand the meaning. Stupid English language...
I'd feel positively euphoric if I hadn't seen (or understood!) the meaning of the R$11,110,016.82 and the 48 hours deadline from 2 days ago! LoL.
Perhaps we'll see an RNS in the morning?
Ob.
Thanks for the link Obs. I will read through it.
And me too. Shipping news has really calmed the nerves.
@Cause - the ship is more exciting! But I managed to find the 19 page judgement from the 7th if you are interested. It reads *very* much in our favour, but finishes a bit confusingly, to me at least! But I am significantly less concerned now :-)))
https://esaj.tjsp.jus.br/cposg/search.do?numeroDigitoAnoUnificado=2213966-51.2019&foroNumeroUnificado=0000&dePesquisaNuUnificado=2213966-51.2019.8.26.0000
@obs - I am a little confused with that case.
It says "Visas. 1. An appeal is filed against an instrument filed against the r. decision of pages 15,889 / 15,890 of the main documents, issued by the judge of the 2nd Bankruptcy and Judicial Reorganization Court, Dr. Paulo Furtado de Oliveira Filho, who approved the plan and granted judicial reorganization."
By that wouldn't it mean the appeal upheld in partial, is an appeal against the appeal against the JRP?
I read it a few times but couldn't come to a conclusion.