@Mr.Lithium - It is always good to ask questions I guess but in a constructive way. So I'd be glad to see that. :)
As for the ship, there is a lot of coincidences with the timing of when the ship appeared which gives a lot of hope. But I would also explore the information shared by @Pgal a few days back.
But end of the day, each of us have to do our own research as ultimately we are responsible for our decisions.
Right now, I am cautiously optimistic for good news. Whichever the case is with the ship, worst case scenario is, the ore will be shipped at a later date. I am optimistic on the agreement being signed, just a matter of when as far as my opinion goes. Just need to keep my trigger happy finger off the button till target is reached. Lol.
". Considering the grounds raised by the aggravating factors, I am convinced of the presence of the "periculum in mora", resulting from the possibility of imminent disposal of the iron ore subject to fiduciary guarantee to third parties, before the assessment, by the collegiate body, of the insurgency now mentioned in the hostile decision. For this reason, in order to avoid the supervening loss of the object of this interlocutory appeal, I grant the suspensive effect to the appeal, only to prevent the sale of the iron ore stock "sub judicie" until the final judgment of the appeal by the Judging Panel. 2."
@Huinhwa - Below are the lines that made me link that to the appeal.
"This urgent measure was filed aiming to give suspensive effect to the special appeal brought by DEV MINERAÇÃOS / A (MINERADORA) against the judgment of the São Paulo Court of Justice, which, considering an interlocutory appeal handled there, maintained the decision of the first court that ratified the plan and granted its judicial recovery, stating, however, that it must be chosen another index of monetary correction different from what was stipulated, in this case, the TR .."
The last line to me is a clear reference to the ruling back in July/August.
"Initially, it should be stressed that the granting of advance protection is subject to the existence of the requirements of the periculum in mora and the fumus boni iuris. "
This line indicates to me that they are referring to the last suspension order by STJ. "periculum in mora and the fumus boni iuris" was the reason given for suspension of shipping at that time. I will post that link shortly.
@Huinhwa - No problems. I like to be corrected when wrong. But the court has rejected the appeal by the bank creditors since. This actually happened a day before the ship appeared on the radar here. So Dev no longer need to wait for a petition from bank creditors. All they need is for bank creditors not to re-appeal.
@Obs posted the link for it. I will try to re-post it.