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.
Digital Process. Petitions for attachment must be submitted exclusively by electronic means, pursuant to article 7 of Res. 551/2011 - Interlocutory Appeal - São Paulo - Appellant: Dev Mineração S.a. (Zamin Amapá Mineração S/a) - Under judicial reorganization - Appealed: The Court - Interested party: Kpmg Corporate Finance Ltda. (Judicial Adm.) - Visas, etc... 1) This is an Interlocutory Appeal filed against r. decision rendered in the court-supervised reorganization records of the appellant. 2) Untimely appeal. The The appealed decision was made available in the Electronic Justice Gazette of 06.17.2021 (Thursday), considering it was published on 06.18.2021 (Friday) (doc. 12). The counting of the deadline started on 06.21.2021 (Monday) and ended on 07/05/2021, contrary to what the appellant maintains. As the appeal was filed on 07.12.2021, it characterized the untimeliness. The terms are counted in calendar and non-business days, according to art. 189, §1, I of Law 11.101/05. With the enactment of Law 14.112/2020, Statement XIV of the Reserved Chambers of Business Law ceased to be valid, with a special rule regarding the counting of deadlines. 3) Therefore, I don't know about the resource. São Paulo, July 15, 2021. JB FRANCO DE GODOI Rapporteur - Judge JB Franco de Godoi -Advs: Raphael Valentim (OAB: 432463/SP) - Jose Rogerio Lima de Araujo (OAB: 149578/SP ) - Luiz Antonio Varela Donelli (OAB: 248542/SP) - Osana Maria da Rocha Mendonça (OAB: 122930/SP) - Pateo do Colégio - room 704
Confirms that timelines are in Calendar days, so this should apply to all judgements
at least us commoners will now know how to count… ;)
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/documentos/1254948899/andamento-do-processo-n-2160378-6120218260000-agravo-de-instrumento-30-07-2021-do-tjsp … the untimely appeal has made into the public diary…
....looked fairly straightforward to me ....
i took it from the haul that they were visiting the mine at the time he pointed to gerald’s stockpiles…
i also took it from the jrp that we were committed to move that stockpile from mine to port only… once the railroad was operational again… not actually ship it to china for them…
didn’t realise… or i’ve forgot somewhere along the line… that gerald had some ore already stockpiled at the port…
thanks ev… that’s the bit i have on my phone…
@tomcat - no doubt about that part, the courts told us:
"He also informs that the PRJ clause dealing with the delivery of iron ore belonging to Geralds Metals must be observed, under penalty of non-compliance with the PRJ"
@EV. Thanks for drawing my attention to that again. Reading in context, and carefully this time, I don't think I understood the significance the first time!
@Bannor. It's a little complicated, so I appreciate any and all views! Perhaps @EV can explain his take? :-)
@TC. It's Gerald's ore as mentioned in the KPMG haul. I think! If not there, then somewhere mentioned Gerald...
This has been an absolute gift horse for cadence ,a huge mine to last yrs of ore in high demand,with a huge pile of ready stock to pay for development's, what a gift and share in issue around 148m,what more is there not to like,have a great day.
are we taking this bit as confirmation that it is gerald’s ore that dev are shipping with ’ours’… so i can stop worrying about indo reducing the size of ‘our’ 1.71mt stockpiles…
dev carried out this trial operation by loading ore owned by a third party… the shipment of this ore is part of the judicial recovery process approved by the creditors in july 2019 and was carried out at a commercial rate…
Wasn't that "with which the Union immediately agrees" caveated by a change in position/agreement by the debtor?
Yes,I liked the "our Ore" rather than just the Ore terminology.Speaks volumes.Lets face it 3p to 30p is already a success story,and more to come iam sure.
It seemed very much like the banks were willing to agree Obs check the "generic decision" 15/07/2021
"with which the Union immediately agrees"
Let's hope this time round with the banks it's a resounding yes, rather than back to us for minor alterations! So far I haven't seen any objection to the additional $10m so it feels like we are still very much aligned, and it's just lawyers dotting the i's and crossing the t's. Got to make a living ;-)
Thanks @tomcat & @EV. Nice to be reminded of that facts. :-)
From 27th May decision Obs:
"The Debtor informs about the first sale of iron ore and deadline for depositing the amount obtained, that is, R$7.5 million. informs that the Agreement with the Banks Union has not been finalized, noting that the Debtor and Investors accepted the changes suggested by the Banks Union. It highlights that only the Indian Banks did not present the accepted draft of the Agreement. He informs that the delay in finalizing the Agreement is bringing losses to the Company under Reorganization. It reiterates the request to assess the expiration of guarantees and credit prescription. At the end, it requires the subpoena of the Union of Banks to complete the transaction, under the terms of the Proposal and 02.07.2020, the addendum of 02.04.2021). Manifest the Union of Banks in 10 days. "
it’s there somewhere… i’ll dig it out over the w/e… if no-one else has it to hand… past decision notice possibly…
Thanks @tomcat. But why that date? I couldn't spot anything on a quick scan of various sources.
it’s… ‘ what’s been going on with the bank settlement in the last year’… there was an amendment agreed in april…
Im thinking logically if the board thought this was not a virtually done deal there would be no way they would release this comprehensive POSITIVE RNS this was great news
What's that @tomcat?
addendum 02.04.21...
I feel the same, now we are getting detailed RNS's about something we dont own yet !!!! I am totally confused as to what has to be done to fulfill the so called bank creditor settlement ???
Can anyone explain to me what’s been going on with the bank settlement in the last year because officially it’s gone from agreement in principle to sending it to the banks for approval / comments
During which the banks have appealed in the courts 2 AGMs will have gone by and a whole lot of ‘nearlys there’
When the AGM was announced everyone expected it to be done by then, hardly likely , can you imagine how many ‘comments’ the bank will have to a multi million pound settlement
...if posting nonsense is reportable these boards would be almost bare - there's a lot of bull either side of the fence ....