Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. 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.
This looks like the important bit from last night's decision - which could be a few weeks old as noted... (it's confusing!)
===[
19) Page 19575/19587 (The Banks Union presents updates on of the conclusion of the Agreement with the Debtor, ratifies the validity of its guarantees fiduciaries, highlights that there is no legal basis for the Debtor's thesis regarding the loss of effectiveness of fiduciary guarantees and informs that the data regarding the sale of the ore ironworks passed by the Debtor did not comply with the request by the Union of Banks. Requires the subpoena of the Debtor "to express its interest in (a) giving up the requests made in the New Debtor Manifestation, or, alternatively (b) agree with the suspension of the assessment of the requests made in the New Debtor Manifestation, with the which the Union immediately agrees" and alternatively requests that the Debtors' requests dealing with the validity of the guarantees. 34. Finally, “it reiterates the requests made in the Union Manifestation (pages 18,447/18,459), including for the Debtor and Cadence clarify, in a public and transparent manner, in the scope of this Judicial Reorganization, the discrepancies of information disclosed in these records and in the communiqué published by Cadence on 03/29/2021, as well as informing: (bi) the conditions of sale, including price, quantity of iron ore, form of payment, identity of the buyer(s), the relationships that maintain (or maintain), if applicable, with the Debtor, its investors and their representatives and related parties, and (b.ii) detailed description of all costs and expenses that would be deducted to enable the sale.” ); Manifestation of Judicial Administrator on the matter attached in 19,796/19,809. Say the recovering one and investors within 10 days.
]===
I do suspect some of that request is dated, as at least some of the information requested has been published already - e.g. the buyer is clearly Glencore. In fact, I suspect all of the information requested has already been published in the hoard...
I can’t see what you are referring to, but in English law there is a difference between the date of the Oder and the date the order is drawn. How exciting…
Hopefully we can get an RNS tomorrow to explain where we are, the date at the top is from 10 days ago and at the bottom is today’s date.
Could the court announce tonight, I wonder how long before proceedings appear online?
Brazilian courts are 4 hour before gmt. English Courts finish at 4.30pm. Any judgment could easily come after the market closes tomorrow and before it opens I n Mon.
@maddog, you'll only see what is en-route whereas I can see what's booked in till the end of October.
7 for Dev, 4 are Named.
One is currently offloading in WAFR.
indeed @observer842 and this might be a surprise to some who may have believed a petition is some sort of legal challenge or objection:
Below is from the link and the words of the Brazilian lawyer:
https://alessandrastrazzi.adv.br/processo/juntada-de-peticao-o-que-significa-isso/
Petition attachment is a procedural step and simply means that a petition has been placed within the process.
But what is a petition?
A petition is a written piece (text) through which the lawyer (or Public Defender, member of the Public Ministry or even the party itself) communicates with the judge. Jokingly , I like to say “ request ”, because it's nothing more than a request (but don't say it like that, for God's sake, huh?).
ev/bull just taking a look round and it seems that there is only 2 ships coming in with in the next 30 days , that would be santana port , that is if the data is right.
Good find @jimb - backs up what @Tradecraft posted the other day.
@Barksy1
good expalnation here of the terms translate to English:
https://alessandrastrazzi.adv.br/processo/processo-concluso-o-que-significa-isso/
a) Conclusions for decision
Interlocutory decision (Article 162, § 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure) or, simply, decision , is the act in which the judge decides on something important in the process, but which is not the final decision, on what was requested by the author. For example: whether or not he will hear a witness
b) Conclusions for judgment
Judgment (Article 162, § 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure) is the act in which the first-degree judge decides on what was requested in the case .
The judgment can be upheld (we say that the plaintiff won the action), partially successful (the plaintiff gained part of what he asked for and lost another part) or unfounded (the plaintiff lost everything he asked for). The sentence may also not decide anything, when we say that there was “ extinction of the case without judgment on the merits ”
c) Conclusions for dispatch
Dispatches (Article 162, § 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure) are mere administrative moves so that the process is correctly forwarded and reaches its end: deciding what was requested. For example: when the judge determines that the plaintiff gives an opinion on the defendant's challenge. Dispatches are not decision-making in nature.
In other words, "conclusions for order" means that the process is with the judge so that he can determine what will be the next administrative movement of the process.
So we are waiting on conclusion for judgement if correct!
It has to increase the chance that it could be Dev’s ore.
I don’t think Kiran would have said what he did without the bank deal being sorted, given the delays I think he’s more likely to be sandbagging, it could have been signed for quite a while and just waiting on court proceedings hence the ships being booked.
Let’s see what the next decision is from the courts, with any luck hopefully tonight!
Does that mean from your point of view there is an increased or decreased chance HS is for DEV's ore? And consequently a change of probability the deal goes through before it is loaded? ;-)
Maybe not then Obs, I hadn't noticed that one, Unamgen have used LBH also.
Googled ‘conclusion of decision….’
the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached. a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement: The restitution payment was one of the conclusions of the negotiations.
Do you think Medi Brisbane (2nd shipment) agency recorded as LBH at: http://www.docasdesantana.com.br/index.php/operacional/programacao-de-navios is not correct? If there is evidence that it was actually ServePorto then you might have won me over ;-)
but* we do
I hope we get another report soon as it's very enlightening.
Yeah, that's the interesting thing Obs,
I still think that the other party are using A/S for their Agency movements and I think we've let them have P2 (test it out for us). The other two would then be for us. I'd like to see something conclusive be we do know Gerald's have a stash and as part of the JRP we are required to assist them with it.
I found a couple of mentions in the haul that reference contracts with ServePorto and I suspect we wouldn't chop and change between agents if we had a contract with them: "Contract discussions with port agent Serveporto".
Nice spot. If the DEV ship due in on Monday is for DEV's ore then it's certainly possible the big one could land tomorrow or Monday... We know the first 3 ships were for DEV's ore and the 4th was for someone else's. 4 named ships on the horizon - could they really be all for this same other? At least DEV is presumably making money from this side venture, and of course the PFS is in progress from recently raised funds from the sale of the iron ore - so waiting isn't all bad... ;-)
Data Movimento
15/07/2021 Conclusos para Decisão
I was mistaken, the JRP included in the second set of hoard minutes is the same as that we found here over a year ago:
https://pje.trt8.jus.br/primeirograu/Processo/ConsultaDocumento/listView.seam
20012416350764800000023996777
Nothing extra in that, but lots of extra around it and in other documents :-)
Indeed. Took me a long time to read everything, well most everything. I think! And I couldn't be bothered to read the JRP again, though I noticed some aspects which were previously redacted weren't this time. I think. Maybe I should check...
It’s possible Obs not ruling it out, but surely if the banks are sorted it wouldn’t matter and if they weren’t they would object and drag it out? but just have to weigh the balance of probabilities there tied in to the other evidence, all may be revealed soon on that one I think.
I am monitoring the hoard as I’d expect it to be updated fairly frequently now we’re at the sharp end. I have looked at most at least quickly and the most recent stuff in detail. I noted the expectation of how many weeks from before.
If it is about shipping more ore in the absence of the deal going through imminently (nothing is certain), they may have decided that appealing an old case was simpler/quicker? Hopefully you are right, but it sure would be nice to know exactly why they have decided to this at this time! Maybe the hoard will be forthcoming in time... Presumably you read the timeline of events nicely summarised?
I can’t see any other reason for it, could be to ship more ore but I’d expect that to be a new appeal just my personal opinion.