Member Info for Bannor

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.

.... 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 ....

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.

WoW ... talk about time warp - I posted that about 1/2 hour ago.... !!

Shouldn't that be the current envisaged LoM .... are we not looking to increase the resource & LoM ... or has the total viable ore extremities within the total licence areas been tested for & identified already .... I seem to recall that the current LoM was only based on current knowledge & there could be more .... maybe I recall incorrectly ....

MLQ - are you asking if the creditors will be paid after Life of Mine LOM or something else - because creditors would be paid a long time prior before the life of Mine has run?

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 ....

Quite correct to LB - I see you lead by example:

"Some posters just constantly post the same old tripe day in day out.
If you don't have any patience, can't be bothered to research the company etc just **** off."

.... hmmm perhaps instead of Maddog it should be BULL dog - LoL

Very good Dog .... in that case can you advise where all the profits went after costs of supporting the local economy & employment of Amapa & it's related businesses & infrastructure prior to the port collapse & the intervening events between then & hopefully where we'll get to eventually?

.... or Brazilian law written in Portuguese even... :-)

I wouldn't be so sure that 30% spike was because of the Yangi news .... maybe some but I think the expectation of Amapa news is what's behind the bulk of any rise / spike, unfortunately if there is a significant rise on the back of any positive Amapa news I suspect there'll be a lot of selling into it .. but hey ho it should settle higher overall if the news is good....

16% .of EMH obviously - but then you knew that.. ..

.......most likely I would .... the JV's are potentially much more valuable to us than a paltry $24M even if we do need to wait until LV & LV1 are no longer economically viable & HAS run out of their preferred 100% owned areas .... don't forget how much MEG & MEX cost us & also Kirans Yangi being worth 4p a share for us (pre consolidation so £4 now LoL) subsequently adjusted though to $200M.....

Although selling only the biddy bit of JV1 currently in the mine plan for $24M could work for me ...... or selling 16% & 3% of MMS for $24M works even better.

I just think it's about time we got the opportunity to partake in a placing especially when we know what it's for & what it will bring to the table .... it wouldnt be like anything needs to be hidden or done behind closed doors in this instance as its all in the public domain....plus If in any small way I can stop that narcissistic shyster Lenigas (my view obviously) getting his grubby paws on anything more than he's entitled to as a shareholder I'd do my level best.

...I'm just hopeful that just for a change when additional financing is required to get us from 27% to 49% that we PI's get the opportunity to partake in a placing to do so (underwritten if necessary) rather than it all being done behind closed with the usual suspects & buddies leaving us locked out ..... again....

PMSL..... & joke post of the month goes to .... LoL

I would suggest others read & understand the projects legally formalised debt settlement, reinvestment & reinstatement plans

on another but perhaps related matter international shipping is conducted in USD (& a few routes on EURO) ... if outstanding shipping costs were ruled on & determined by the courts in reals depending on what's happened to exchange rates that could cause an issue & a big hole somewhere .... maybe this appeal is of a similar nature & halted pending the outcomes of rulings/appeals elsewhere....

Looks to me (& I could be very very wrong of course) but I try looks to me like it's the suspension of an on going appeal on monetary matters (accounting or payments) relating to Labor where there the appeal is challenging the validity/accuracy of the original ruling ..... it appears to me to be a 'hold' on the appeal process whilst they await a ruling/judgement of another court on another or similar (potentially linked) matter.... I'm not sure but I don't think it will necessarily halt 'shipments' but as I said I wouldn't rely on my interpretation over much

I agree Dallas & up to Amapa it seemed to me that our BoD was hellbent (knowingly/willingly/intentionally or not) on helping them out on that outcome... as I said recently, despite my initial reservations IMV Amapa is now the best potential bridge to JV exploitation/realisation we've had thus far...

... I just said that didn't I !! or was that still in response to Dallas