REMINDER: Our user survey closes on Friday, please submit your responses 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.
@Obs - I wouldn't say it is within my grasp as well. :'). Purely my interpretation. Until anything is put in writing, I guess I am just guessing and interpreting.
I am just picking your brain, I learn a lot from doing that :), to see where I could be going wrong :) Healthy discussion is always good in my book.
Cheers @Barksy.
@Cause - I guess what I'm getting at is that the wording of that particular ruling is slightly beyond my comprehension! LoL. But if you think it is within your grasp, then great! :-)) The line you highlighted does indeed confuse. I should say that I think the ruling was in favour of DEV but thought I'd point out that I'm not certain as it's complicated. Percentage wise I'd say I believe with 95% certainty it's in DEV's favour. i.e. I believe that the higher court rejected the injunction requested by the banks to prevent the shipment of ore. As to why the ore hasn't started to ship since that date? Perhaps these things take time, or as we have hypothesised, perhaps it is a show of good faith being so close to completing the deal?
@Obs - Thank you. The link works for me :)
Do you think a decision is still to be made?
For me, this ruling is definitely linked to the shipping ruling because it directly refers to it.
"This urgent measure was filed aiming to assign a suspensive effect to the special appeal filed byDEV MINERAÇÃO S / A (MINERADORA) against the judgment of the São Paulo Court of Justice, which, considering an interlocutory appeal handled there, maintained the decision of the first court that ratified the plan and granted its judicial recovery, recognizing, however, that the project for payment of labor credits did not obey the command of art. 54 of Law 11.101 / 05.
As stated in the initial petition, the special appeal is still waiting for its first admissibility judgment to be made by the São Paulo Court (e-STJ, page 4)."
"considering an interlocutory appeal handled there, maintained the decision of the first court that ratified the plan and granted its judicial recovery, recognizing, however, that the project for payment of labor credits did not obey the command of art. 54 of Law 11.101 / 05."
This particular line was what I was referring to. The judgement back in July (I think) only had one objection, which was to how inflation (I think) was accounted for and suggested a different method.
But is this line the concern?
"As stated in the initial petition, the special appeal is still waiting for its first admissibility judgment to be made by the São Paulo Court (e-STJ, page 4)."
I thought the decision was in favour of dev because of this line.
"This urgent measure was filed aiming to assign a suspensive effect to the special appeal filed byDEV MINERAÇÃO S / A (MINERADORA) against the judgment of the São Paulo Court of Justice"
Ok Obs done, let’s see what happens .
@Cause, it looks to me that they have copied and pasted what they reported previously perhaps believing that the situation was unchanged and no progress had been made. I'm also uncertain on the meaning of this:
https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/decisoes/toc.jsp?livre=DEV+MINERACAO&b=DTXT
I'm not sure if that link is working any more, but you can easily search on that site for the high court decision made on the 7th/8th October 2020.
Thanks @Obs. But they would have mentioned it if there was change to that status wouldn't they? Back in August, we were allowed to ship too and it is during the interim period the appeal happened and was dealt with if I have me timeliness correct (which I doubt :') ).
Also there was no mention of any updates post the period with regards to Amapa on the documents. There was mention of 2 other mines.
Please correct me if my understandingis wrong.
does it still say there’s 3mt there ob... can’t be an error if they’ve stated that consistently... do you know if the royalties are transferable in a bankruptcy/judicial recovery event... i sense a little uncertainty in the way the have noted their intent to claim those...
@Cause: "Affirmation that what @Obs found with courts is correct. Courts have allowed the shipping so it may just be a good faith agreement to not ship at the moment.". I wouldn't take what you quoted as affirmation as they reported exactly the same text in their 27 August 2020 announcement.
@Barksy. You could ask @Kiran why Anglo report there are: "3Mt of iron ore currently sitting as a stockpile in the port facilities."
Truest thing @Bannor. I shall sit and wait..and add if I can..I do need to test out what commission IG will charge me in November :')
indeed cause as usual time will tell.............. eventually ...... or perhaps .... imminently!!
@bannor - I am just guessing because Dev haven't shipped anything yet, or that we don't know if they have. The creditors not putting in a petiton may indicate towards them not wanting to ship and maybe there is a soft agreement between all parties, especially if conclusion is near. Compromises maybe to get it across the line..and a stick to beat them with if they delay? Threaten to ship if they drag things maybe. Lol.
All guess work though.
Also creditors haven't appealed the decision as far as I can see.
you might of course right about not shipping in 'good faith' however I do find it a little puzzling to reconcile that with the stated 'request to petition jointly for the removal restrictions' on shipping AND the subsequent authority handed reinforcing permission to ship $10M of it by the court in any event ... be that as it may though as if I was the bank I'd have said no in any event.
we also announced the appointment of a shipping manager & shipping broker in Jun .... I wonder what they've been up to / paid for from then to now.
@Barksy1 - Thank you. Apologies if I am posting this out of turn.
Affirmation that what @Obs found with courts is correct. Courts have allowed the shipping so it may just be a good faith agreement to not ship at the moment.
We have been following the updates provided by Cadence Minerals with particular interest. Cadence is working
with the former Zamin operating company with the intention to form a joint venture to bring the mine back into operation. The creation of the joint venture will require the current senior secured creditors to relax their
security claims over the project at which point Cadence will release from escrow its initial investment and
become a 20% owner in the project.
Cadence has reported that discussions with the senior secured creditors are progressing well. In addition, the
Brazilian courts have reaffirmed its decision to allow the shipment of the 3Mt of iron ore currently sitting as a
stockpile in the port facilities.
Cadence has also reported that the total historical mineral resource contains an estimated 348Mt of ore at 38.9%
iron content ("Fe"). The ore is beneficiated at the mine to 65% Fe Pellet Feed and 62% Fe Spiral Concentrate.
Based on available historic mine plans and an independent consultant review, it is expected that at full
production the Amapá Project has a mine life of 14 years and at full capacity is targeting to produce up to 5.3Mt
of iron ore per annum.
https://www.sedar.com/DisplayProfile.do?lang=EN&issuerType=03&issuerNo=00030202
Page 7
We also note the progress Cadence Minerals is making in trying to bring the Amapá project back online, following a court supervised reorganisation paving the way towards the establishment of a joint venture to inject new capital into the project. The Group we will be claiming its royalty entitlements over any stockpile sales.
GetFile.do.pdf
We have seen strong and growing momentum in our development assets which could see considerable value accrue to the Group for assets which are ascribed little balance sheet value, noticeably the recent permit grant for Berkeley Energia, the cornerstone position Fortescue have taken in the Canariaco project, the earn-in
agreement we consented to for Dugbe 1 and the efforts being made to bring Amapá back on line as reported by Cadence Minerals. We understand that progress is also being made in respect of raising the necessary finance for Brazilian Nickel which would enable the unlocking of substantial value for the group when that