We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
bump... that took some time to get...
Our case is:
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/processos/65368883/processo-n-1088747-7520158260100-do-tjsp
and we are mentioned directly here:
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/252492676/djsp-judicial-1a-instancia-capital-22-07-2019-pg-997
===[
Pages 997 to 1000
]===
and here:
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/258695581/djsp-judicial-1a-instancia-capital-28-08-2019-pg-1103
===[
Pages 1103 to 1106
]===
This site might be of interest to others wanting to do their own research.
https://esaj.tjsp.jus.br/cdje/consultaAvancada.do
That's probably enough from me until further news :-)
I should say if our team pulls this off they have my utmost respect! It looks an utter quagmire that I'm beginning to see perhaps why it was left to a minnow like KDNC to sort out as I suspect the whales wouldn't want to touch with a barge pole you can see from outer space until we've done all the hard work! :-) Point being. If we pull this off, even just as far as stage 1 of us owning 20%, it's a huge step IMHO. An update would be most welcome @Kiran - if you aren't too busy in 9 hour meetings! ;-)
Thanks for your kind words @Ivybush. I've had another go, but I've still been unable to find what I was looking for. In case I feel like taking another look or someone else wants a go, here is some background and relevant links.
On the 4th of December an agreement was reached for R$47m (about £8.8m). There are two official sources of this news that I could find. The first is from "Ministério Público do Estado do Amapá" which translated is "Public Prosecutor of the State of Amapá" and this is typically abbreviated to MP-AP:
"Anglo will pay 47 million for environmental and social damages in agreement with State and Federal Prosecutors" (December 05, 2019)
https://www.mpap.mp.br/noticias/gerais/anglo-vai-pagar-47-milhoes-por-danos-ambientais-e-sociais-em-acordo-firmado-com-o-ministerio-publico-estadual-e-federal
===[
The amounts will be deposited, in two installments, in the judicial accounts linked to the Public Civil Action No. 1000891-55.2017.4.01.3100, having as beneficiaries the three municipalities and will be managed by the MP-AP and MPF and may only be moved upon previous presentation of projects for urban infrastructure, education and health.
]===
MP-AP also posted on Instagram:
https://www.picuki.com/media/2192174564566665748
the second is from "Ministério Público Federal" which translated is "Public Federal Ministry" and this is typically referred to as MPF:
"Anglo American signs agreement to compensate municipalities for R $ 47 million for the collapse of the Port of Santana (AP)" (DECEMBER 5, 2019)
http://www.mpf.mp.br/ap/sala-de-imprensa/noticias-ap/anglo-american-firma-acordo-para-indenizar-municipios-em-r-47-milhoes-pelo-desabamento-do-porto-de-santana-ap
All good so far. But then this:
"Approval of R $ 47 million agreement between Anglo and Amapá municipalities is postponed" (11th Dec)
https://g1.globo.com/ap/amapa/noticia/2019/12/11/homologacao-de-acordo-de-r-47-milhoes-entre-anglo-e-municipios-do-amapa-e-adiada.ghtml
===[
For the agreement to be valid, the federal judge must approve the document. An attempt occurred on Tuesday (10) in Macapá , but the process was attached. According to MP-AP, due to the company being in the process of judicial recovery and being taken over by another venture, DEV Mineração.
The MPF has 10 days to comment on the inclusion of DEV in the action. Municipalities are confident that validation will take place soon.
]===
I've searched high and low for harder evidence than "according to MP-AP" at various places:
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/processos/188146448/processo-n-1000891-5520174013100-do-trf-1
https://www.mpap.mp.br
These might relate to the 10 (working?) day notice:
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/busca?q=309cffc
In summary, it's hard to know if they are trying to pull us (DEV) into the case or whether it's about giving us a chance to object to the agreement if there are some aspects that are detrimental to us?
Ob
But are they good things - there was a lot of selling on Thur/Fri ??
@observer842 My thanks for your continued research, we owe you a debt of gratitude for
the hours you work on our behalf.
As I stated previously it is clear the local authorities are pursuing Zamin/Anglo for retribution.
It also appears to me that with appeals so soon after hearings that there is a sense of urgency
to conclude these cases. All positive for kdnc as we will be party to a major resource without
any carry forward baggage and have the political goodwill to proceed.
A major factor for the local government is the prospect of permanent employment for many
in an area of deprivation.
There is clearly a lot, and I mean a LOT, going on behind the scenes!
I feel I'm getting closer and starting to understand their system (!) - but it's hard work!
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/topicos/97912826/zamin-amapa-mineracao-saem-recuperacao-judicial
why would they want dev including in the action... why would we want dev including in the action...
yep... no comprende...
It's mostly near impenetrable to decipher, but looks like progress to me.
"Dev Mineração Sa"
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/topicos/195342636/dev-mineracao-sa
I'm trying unsuccessfully to find the official proclamation relating to this:
"Approval of R $ 47 million agreement between Anglo and Amapá municipalities is postponed" (11th Dec 2019)
https://g1.globo.com/ap/amapa/noticia/2019/12/11/homologacao-de-acordo-de-r-47-milhoes-entre-anglo-e-municipios-do-amapa-e-adiada.ghtml
===[
The Federal Court has postponed the approval of the agreement made between representatives of the company Anglo Ferrous Brazil and municipalities of Santana , Pedra Branca do Amapari and Serra do Navio , which provides compensation of $ 47 million for environmental and social damage caused by the venture.
...
The amount of the compensation was agreed between the company and the municipalities on December 4, in a mediation made by the Federal Public Ministry (MPF) and the State of Amapá (MP-AP).
...
For the agreement to be valid, the federal judge must approve the document. An attempt occurred on Tuesday (10) in Macapá , but the process was attached. According to MP-AP, due to the company being in the process of judicial recovery and being taken over by another venture, DEV Mineração.
The MPF has 10 days to comment on the inclusion of DEV in the action. Municipalities are confident that validation will take place soon.
]===
and whether MPF have commented, and if so, what they said. They should have commented by yesterday, assuming the 10 days are calendar days and not working days, which seems likely.
Ob.