focusIR May 2024 Investor Webinar: Blue Whale, Kavango, Taseko Mines & CQS Natural Resources. Catch up with the webinar 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.
Another earlier ruling I guess.
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/305289390/trt-8-judiciario-03-07-2020-pg-563?ref=serp
I disagree with the request made by the plaintiff by means of petition ID 5823923, since, contrary to what is alleged, in the present case it was not requested to qualify its credit with the bankruptcy court of the defendant.
In fact, the amount owed is centralized in the records of process No. 0000525-21.2017.5.08.0201 , as evidenced by ID 37a52c7. In consultation with this centralizing process, I note that there was a direction of execution in the face of the company Anglo Ferrous Brazil Participações S / A.
Give yourself science.
Return the file to the file.
Indeed, no matter how we try to spin it, it seems that in fact we are in agreement ;-)
LoL .... you're saying 'is' followed by 'likely' ... I'm saying maybe & possibly even probable ...
Aren't we effectively in fact saying the same thing using different words ... either way the next Amapa news will hopefully confirm it either way...
I completely agree @Bannor. It's just that I believe what me and @tomcat think is the case is significantly more likely from what I've read.
Hmmm abduction huh ain't it sweet....
I'm not arguing the potential for a haircut is there just saying that just because other creditors have already voted on & agreed to it in the court sanctioned JRP it doesn't necessarily follow that a .... 'now later & separate court ruling in regard to the bank creditors ' ... that the courts wouldn't also rule separately on whether the same, alternate level or indeed any haircut was appropriate & would be inflicted or enforceable to the debt on conversion to unsecured - indeed there could well be something related to a reduction otherwise what was the purpose of attempting to negotiate agreement in any event.
But as I said I'm OK with it either way - obviously there are benefits to a haircut as well so it'd be good .... but just by virtue of their being demoted & the deal moving forward would be enough for me for now.
i’m agree with you on that specific point ob... cancellation of the secured credit guarantees... is automatic relegation to the unsecured creditors list... so would then be paid as defined for unsecured credit... had they accepted our settlement offer... they may have got something different... but they didn’t...
@Bannor, thanks for clarifying and you could be right. It's possible I've made an incorrect connection related to the 30% discount from the following sources:
"Amapá Iron Ore Project Given Court Approval to Commence Iron Ore Shipments" (14 April 2020)
http://irservices.netbuilder.com/ir/cadence/newsArticle.php?ST=REM&id=311428203156429223
===[
In addition, the Court has requested that the secured bank creditors reach an agreement with the JV Partners and DEV within 60 days or the Court might rule on the annulment of the Bank Liens and consider the banks as unsecured creditors. As unsecured creditors, the bank's credit will be subject to restructuring plan limits and discounts and be paid from free cash flow from DEV, which may be over fifteen years.
]===
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1t_2GNdDBpqXrb9UszfuVFa63N6s_lHIA/view
===[
4.5. Unsecured Creditors. Unsecured creditors you will receive your credits according to the following conditions:
4.5.1. Seventy percent (70%) of each creditor's claims chirographic will be paid in full in accordance with the
following condition:
4.5.1.1. Each claim belonging to creditors it will be discounted with thirty percent (30%)
]===
But it does look to me that if the courts rule the banks as unsecured creditors they will be in the same boat as other unsecured creditors and will be obliged to take the haircut (use of the word "discounts" in our RNS)
They had an offer on the table which, presumably, would have been more advantageous to them than defaulting to unsecured creditors. It looks like they couldn't take advantage of that offer because they couldn't reach agreement with themselves...
@bannor- "whether with or without a haircut I'm OK with it to be honest just so long as it moves the project forward in our favour ...."
I feel the same. That would be a big step forward.
.... OK got it ... however what I was getting at is that:
a) we know the courts have threatened to rule the banks as unsecured creditors if agreement isn't reached
b) we know that other creditors have agreed by majority vote to a 30% haircut.
however ...... we 'don't' know in my opinion that any court directed amortization of the banks debts into books as unsecured creditors will automatically come with a haircut .... in fact the court could just as easily direct that with the lack of any alternate settlement agreed/in place the debts owed to the banks should be amortized in full just as easily as they direct a 'haircut' .... that in my opinion could mitigate/reduce/undermine much of any legal challenge the banks might be able to raise as an objection .... whether with or without a haircut I'm OK with it to be honest just so long as it moves the project forward in our favour ....
@Bannor: "so I don't think any 'haircut' is part of amortization as such" I think in this context amortization could mean a write down of the secured credit, as it becomes unsecured, by 30%, as envisaged by the JRP - you seemed to suggest by the bit I quoted that this wasn't the case. It doesn't matter either way - in practice if they become unsecured creditors the JRP has the answers. ;-)
Bannor/ you have it right
Errr ... are you saying I was wrong in that amortization was the taking into accounts of a value that is intended to be written down over a period...
I think all the courts are directing (if we're reading/translating/interpreting correctly) that amortization into or exclusion of happens without further delay.
I think you are right @tomcat. It was @Bannor's questioning of the use of the word amortisation which made me go back to the Portuguese and forget it was referring to the past anyway at that point. LoL. Fingers crossed! :-)
the court of first instance of the judicial reorganization on such payments is briefly advised to proceed with the amortization of the amounts or exclusion of the list of creditors presented by zamin in the judicial reorganization process...
also... officiate... the banking institution indicated in petition id a32c636... to proceed immediately with the cancellation of letter of guarantee no.180010317... which had been presented by the defendant... but which was not accepted by the court...
‘is briefly advised to proceed with’... do it quickly...
‘to proceed immediately with’... do it right now...
that section is a recap on the points that the court is ruling on... the before ruling... the last bit is ruling...
Of course it may have been cancelled subsequent to that as noted by @Cause and @tomcat in the main case we are following...
i.e. it has *yet* to be cancelled...
Might be worth someone translating this carefully, as it's possible the gist of the second part is: "as soon as the letter of guarantee has been cancelled". i.e. it has to be cancelled... Talk about lost in translation! ;-)
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/305289607/trt-8-judiciario-03-07-2020-pg-780
===[
Requer ainda, que o Juízo da execução informe ao Juízo da recuperação judicial sobre o pagamento de valores aos exequentes listados na petição para amortização de valores devidos nesta execução, assim como seja determinado o cancelamento da carta fiança de que havia sido apresentada pela executada.
]===
@Bannor. You could be right. But I think in this context if it is what we hope it is, then the secured credit will become unsecured credit and will take a 30% haircut and be paid off in years 5 to 17 as described in the JRP. If this is the case then I think the use of the word amortização to describe this process would be acceptable shorthand.
===[
It also requires that the enforcement court inform the court of the judicial reorganization about the payment of amounts to the persons listed in the petition for amortization of amounts due in this enforcement, as well as the cancellation of the letter of guarantee that had been presented by the defendant to be determined.
]===
the list of executors may help to clarify... sounds like secured creditors... ‘executors’... rather than unsecured creditors...
Amortization would be the taking into the accounts of a value & then the process of its reduction/repayment over time ... so I don't think any 'haircut' is part of amortization as such but it (if it's going to have a haircut) would happen prior to the amount that requires amortization being inserted Into your books.
I'll be honest & say that I haven't yet got to grips with these latest court judgements, the translation or their meaning exactly yet ....
Odd!
i know... but when i checked the one i use this morning... not that i’m a robot... it wasn’t there... could be it hadn’t refreshed 1st time...
It's like I said @tomcat: I take amortization to mean 30% haircut, plus paid in later years.
amortization of the amounts or exclusion of the list of creditors presented by zamin in the judicial reorganization process...
i think those listed have already been paid... so they will be removed from the list... amortisation... is that in reference to the payments to the bank creditors then...