Ben Richardson, CEO at SulNOx, confident they can cost-effectively decarbonise commercial shipping. 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.
I should also add there are also people who enjoy bathing & wallowing in others angst or plaudits as is their wont.
ev/ you are wrong my friend l am not fud" what l read is what l asked the board no less and no more , as l say the bods need to clear this up now, because it looks to me as if this could carry on for months past my dead line" 2022 is not a option in my book.
bannor/ that is true and l am well aware " l tinks you no that ,
Kiren is not telling the truth about the bank settlement theres been repeated warning signs of this for the last year but some people keep ignoring every one of them
YAP YAP .... It is beyond me to determine the reasons/meaning behind much of what is posted up on the Brazilian court sites, however if you really want to know my thoughts on it they are that in the previous pages it indicates the document highlights clarifications/amendments to prior rulings & judgements (such as reassignment of debts etc) so in my view this may simply be a restatement of existing/known positions at the time the document was prepared..... which to EVB's point could now be outdated, negated or changed by subsequent events again who knows... it's there for all to see with today's date on it .... make of it what you will.
Again don't put any store by anything posted by anonymous posters on these boards - do your own research, make your own assessment & act accordingly - I know people like to have someone to blame for their losses & someone to laud for their profits I want/need neither.
They were absolutely posted on the court case but not "published" in the DJE journal (which they have now been). You can go back two weeks to see the discussion about it on this very message board in the "Court Watching" thread.
The "decision" lists 32 items one by one and is essentially out of date at the time it is posted.
@maddog I feel that you have misunderstood or are deliberately creating FUD. If you post the exact quote that you are unsure of I can offer my opinion.
Bannor what is your take or am l wrong in my assumptions.
ev/ l am not interested in the $10 million ,
..... there is no question or doubt from me that this hasn't been identified previously in court issued announcements ... what is also evident is that it was posted again today for whatever purpose or reason - no one need put any store by it & each as stated should make their own judgement/assumptions/position on it ......as I have said on numerous occasions everyone should take everything on these boards with a pinch of salt until/unless they satisfy themselves of the facts/meanings - these boards are full of people crying because they listened to posters on it for their choices/decisions.
ev/the want to no how we are beaning financed ,
they want a break down of shipping costs ,
they want to no about the creditors payments,
all these items seem not to have bean presented in the correct manor,
it also seems to me that the admin costs and shipping cost are in question ?
Bannor it may be old news but some think is not rite note the main tex was aimed at Cadence ,
the bods should clear this up pronto, or am l wrong again?
@maddog Can you quote exactly what you are concerned about?
@Bannor - Click here https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/processos/65368883/processo-n-1088747-7520158260100-do-tjsp clearly posted on the 15th July (the date on the official pdf is actually two weeks prior), the net $10m is there on the 23rd July.
ev/ so why out of curiosity why does it mention cadence financing plus why are the courts asking for clarity a bout the shipment costs and creditor payment " all these requests are aimed at cadence only ?
The fact that it may be old news, I haven't checked myself but I take EV's word for it actually makes all the difference. The recent agreement to ship another $10m of iron ore surely wouldn't have happened if there remained serious concerns?
It's dated/published today as I said make of it what you will but it indicates the issues the banks have with requests made to the court by Dev & continues to demand details on the sale of ore by Dev/Cadence...
Take your pick on how you view it from:
a) ongoing issues with the bank syndicate
b) done, dusted & irrelevant
c) just manouverings of both parties to achieve goals.
d) negated as/when/if the banks finally sign off on the deal.
e) something else entirely
As I said make of it what you will...
I think you are missunderstanding it maddog and assigning too much of this to kdnc.
This is all lawyers and legal speak around small creditor payments via DEV and KPMG, we are pretty much a bystander to this part of process.
ev/ that might be old news but it is not good news.
ev/ l never read it but to me it reads as if our bods have f/u the paper works,
it does not sound like a done deal to me when the courts want to no at this late stage how kdnc will be finance ,
also there seems to be bad admin concerning the break down of costs and labour payment , how could a company get so much wrong at this stage ,
Old news Bannor, we posted this two weeks ago.
Could you precis it pls?
come on bannor spell it out in English because l might post the wrong thing and get shot down
make of it what you will....
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/1139324939/djsp-judicial-1a-instancia-capital-03-08-2021-pg-1052
has now been published in the diary… specially for robot…
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/documentos/1256526860/andamento-do-processo-n-1088747-7520158260100-recuperacao-judicial-recuperacao-judicial-e-falencia-03-08-2021-do-tjsp …
Just maxed out this years ISA allownce with a few more,cmon KM,get yer quill, dip it in the inkpot and get that parchment signed.Oh,and tell the Banks the same.
.... yes I saw that earlier... One that went against DeV (appellant) due to not being submitted within the required time limit ...... it does however confirm that the court works in calendar days....