Member Info for Bannor

OBS .... when the courts provided guarantees to the creditors in terms of liens over 'material stockpiles' in my opinion it would have been based on the volume of material required at the price of said material at the time of judgement sufficient to settle the debt owed ..... in my view it wouldn't have given a party legal ownership of the ore but rather a guarantee over the sale/use of it to the extent that the debt had to be covered.

So for instance if Gerald were owed $60M & the ore price at the time of ruling was $60 per tonne then they would have been given a guarantee over 100,000T of Ore however if the ore rose to $100 per tonne it would only require the sale of 60,000T to settle the debt .... I don't think it would be permitted in a court sanctioned process that the creditor would be allowed to pocket an additional $40M of revenue on top of the $60M of debt unless Dev had completely folded with no recovery potential & they had been awarded title at the time (held onto it until prices increased) rather than being granted a guarantee.

They were owed $xxx & as far as I read it they are still owed exactly that amount (plus interest perhaps) less any agreed discounts due the JRP settlement..... anything leftover after the debt had been settled would ultimately revert to DEV ... that's how I assess it to be unless someone can prove/evidence otherwise.

Them's the risks of flying last-minute.com LoL

I should also add there are also people who enjoy bathing & wallowing in others angst or plaudits as is their wont.

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 which to EVB's point could now be outdated, negated or changed by subsequent events again who knows...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.

..... 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.

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...

make of it what you will....
https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/1139324939/djsp-judicial-1a-instancia-capital-03-08-2021-pg-1052

Spin out of AU/CU assets _ not of huge significance considering our 1% direct stake:

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02402982-6A1044231?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4

More progress processing site earmarked...
https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02402278-6A1043886?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4

EV & JF ... exactly that to both comments .... why would Indo offer it if they don't have to & why would we not take it if they do.

For me the 49% question is only relevant IF & only IF it is offered, there is no guarantee or requirement that it will be & it is entirely at Indo's discretion/need/desire......

So if it is offered & the rewards/indicators/PFS warrant further investment we should take it by whatever means necessary, whether by sale of assets, capital raise or both..... if it is offered & we didn't take it it would be a huge indicator in my opinion that the project has some significant questions to answer over its viability/potential to be addressed .... don't forget if it's offered & we don't take it up Indo have the option (but not a requirement) to repurchase our 27% for US$9M ... so there needs to be a good reason not to go to 49% IF we are provided with the opportunity.

"RE: Deadline extended once againFri 17:29
@jam2morrow "I did wonder if an 'imminent' court decision on the COE case might be stretching this out."

What does the Church of England have to do with a mine in Mexico?"

Somebody doesn't seem to know their history!! LoL

.... 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....

....looked fairly straightforward to me ....

Wasn't that "with which the Union immediately agrees" caveated by a change in position/agreement by the debtor?

What was being said about nonsense.....LoL

...if posting nonsense is reportable these boards would be almost bare - there's a lot of bull either side of the fence ....

'Fait accompli' - has already been stated by KM .....

https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02400470-6A1042991?access_token=83ff96335c2d45a094df02a206a39ff4

I suspect it may be more than some!!