Member Info for Cause17

MLQ - What do they ship, may I ask?

https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/320500117/trt-8-judiciario-06-10-2020-pg-766?ref=serp

In the interest of the above process and as determined by the Judge (s), the party (ies) indicated (s) in the recipient field (s), subpoenaed to be aware that ANGLO FERROUS BRAZIL PARTICIPAÇÕES SA filed an interlocutory appeal, which, if desired, may be presented in the legal deadline

https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/320355055/djsp-judicial-1a-instancia-capital-06-10-2020-pg-591?ref=serp

Not sure how interesting this is...nothing major is my opinion.

Apologies for the misunderstanding @masterbaker. Lol. It was very quiet. Was it 5 or 6 posts at 5 pm :') Hopefully the calm before the storm. :)

@makemoremoney - No. This shouldn't lead to any delays. I don't think this is bad for us.

I think it is good in the sense that AF has interest in getting the JRP wrapped up.

Hey @Masterbaker. Thank you. It's still iffy but got to believe everything is for the better. :)

Don't leave though :) I always enjoy your posts and wordplay.

But not all credits in the AF case are in JRP

"In addition, not all those involved in this process are included in the list of creditors presented in ID 6e4abb8."

"It is also possible to verify that the related beneficiaries have less credits than those that are actually owed to them. Facts that only reinforce that the value of the labor credits in execution in the accomplishment exceeds the provisioned value for both in the judicial reorganization process."

"1. in view of the decision issued in partial correction nº0000482-03.2020.5.08.0000 , determine the issuance of an official letter to qualify the credits of those who have already done so who are not yet in the list of creditors of ID 6e4abb8 and who have in the passive pole the executed ZAMIN AMAPÁ MINERAÇÃO SA, in process 1088747-75.2015.8.26.0100 pending in the 2nd Bankruptcy and Judicial Reorganizations Court, without prejudice to the continuation of the execution in these records."

Hey @tomcat. Again apologies for responding to you with so much delay. Has not been the best 30 hours or so...

Below is an old case link (ruling on a previous appeal for the same credits)

https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/314034753/trt-8-judiciario-27-08-2020-pg-1371?ref=previous_button

===================

The below seems to indicate atleast part of the labour credits in the JRP is under discussion on this appeal.

==============================
"the existence of a new fact capable of having repercussions on the labor credits charged in the records and in other proceedings in which the Anglo Group was liable, having informed that there was a sale of assets of the company Zamin in the amount of US $ 10 million in the Judicial Reorganization Court, of which US $ 2,500,000.00 will be allocated to labor creditors, which may generate double payments, since they will benefit both Judicial recovery process as well as in this labor process, if their liability is maintained"

"the credits of several exequentes that were centralized in this feat are listed in the list of creditors presented by Zamin in the judicial reorganization process"

===========================

"In addition, I would like to clarify that the fact that there is a judicial reorganization plan for the first one executed does not remove the responsibility of the embarantee for the payment of labor debts centralized in this fact, in view of its alimentary nature, since there are several enough to settle the labor claim, there is no reason to that the authors wait indefinitely for obtaining debtor's credits, as provided in article 115, of the Consolidation of Provisions of the Internal Affairs Department of the Labor Court."

@tomcat - Can you please let me know which dates you are referring to?

Also if you remember correctly, shortly after courts granted the shipping of iron ore, AF made an appeal stating that there is a new development (at that time) where dev can ship ore to pay towards the labour credits AF is being held accountable for and courts should consider that and remove them from the joint liability which was then rejected by the courts too.

I am of the opinion the debt AF is being jointly liable for is atleast part of the debt in JRP.

I will try to dig up some of the old rulings for clarity.

@tomcat - Apologies for the late response. The labour cases seems to refer to Dev by it's old name. Not sure why. It refers to Zamin as in judical recovery in most of the cases in Labour courts.

There is also the reference to the judgement in the recovery courts that was posted here by @Bannor. You will find the reference link on the 5th paragraph under "subsidiary responsibility of the second claimed."

AF's argument is that since Zamin had taken full ownership of the project, they are responsible for any liabilities arising since that date. But courts argument is the labour liabilities were fulfilled while AF was in charge and the succession was to a company that couldn't meet the labour obligations financially (you may find these information on the preceding case documents) hence under the Brazilian labour law AF is liable for those liabilities.

So it isn't AF's liabilities but because they didn't ensure that Zamin could meet the labour liabilities that were contracted under AF, AF is also jointly held responsible for those Labour debts.

So it is actually the reverse. AF's liabilities aren't being passed on. Responsibility of Zamin's (Which is now Dev) labour debts for those which were contracted under AF's ownership (That is my interpretation) are being passed on to AF as joint liability.

Dev doesn't incur any new debt but I remember reading some additional claims being pursed in labour courts to be added to the JRP but not big amounts.

My interpretation of this is that AF is now jointly liable for the labour credit claims as during the succession from AF to Zamin, AF didn't ensure that Zamin had the financial capacity to meet Labour obligations.

Could mean that only way for AF to get out of this is to get DEV into the hands of the joint venture and ensure it succeeds?

https://tst.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/937985666/agravo-de-instrumento-em-recurso-de-revista-airr-2349420175080209

@makemoremoney - No idea. Waiting and watching and adding where I can. :) Personally expecting some sort of update in the next couple of weeks. Atleast a progress update.

Is the timing of the RNS interesting? Quite late on the day here..morning in Brazil...

Yes...too much time in the hand to think too much..lol

Hello MLQ. Good evening.

That made me laugh @masterbaker. lol

@Bannor - Thank you but your posts are quite informative to me. :)
And yes. i will be waiting for that RNS too.

Thanks @Tomcat :) Guess time will tell. 5 days of wait..or less.

Hello @Obs. Long time. Hope you are well.

Thanks @Bannor. Your translation is worth a good amount to me.

That was how I understood it too but talking about penalty if no payment in 5 days was a bit confusing to me.

Thanks @tomcat. Does that mean the agreement has to be finalised soon or some form of agreement has been communicated to the courts? If I remember correctly, there was a time we learned about a change through the court publications before a RNS.

The ruling you posted earlier has been published.

https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/documentos/936412357/andamento-do-processo-n-1088747-7520158260100-recuperacao-judicial-recuperacao-judicial-e-falencia-01-10-2020-do-tjsp?ref=feed

Do you think pay within 5 days mean they have to release DIP A within 5 days? I know I said my opinion is it is not the case, but re-reading a few times, I am a bit confused.

Thank you Neebaj and Pawnsacrifice.