Member Info for Cause17

@Dallasdaz - "Just wondering if anyone has asked for an extension or is it back to...."the court 'might' rule".

I think it is still court might rule. If they had granted an extension as a decision then it would have been up already I would think. Maybe it is informal from courts extending by delaying the ruling because they see progress and feel as if it is concluding and by not putting the extension in writing, allowing the possibility of them "might" rule.

My opinions of course.

You maybe right Tomcat. Courts were so strong in their condemnation of the banks not making a decision last time around. Hopefully we will know the answers soon, which I think we will given the timelines Obs posted yesterday.

Also does the wording change from the banking group negotiating with themselves for a consensus (which was my understanding from previous ruling, RNS etc) to ongoing negotiations with the banking group in the current RNS suggest anything?

In my opinion, it would be better if the banks agree on something as otherwise there is always the chance of them challenging any court enforcement.

Yes. Agreed Tomcat.

Some rulings (pages 576 to 579). Looks like some labour credit cleared.

https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/305946570/trt-8-judiciario-08-07-2020-pg-576?ref=serp

@maddog - :')

@maddog - is this a new update? Any links?

@Obs - I have a follow up question. Could they have put out the vox interview without a RNS? Or do they need to update the market with a RNS as the interview contained new information (That court hasn't ruled on the annulment as the previous RNS said end of month) and I assume the interview was pre-recorded (My understanding from reading the posts here is it was recorded last week).

Appreciate any clarification..

Thanks Obs. Will do.

In the contract between Zamin and Cadence there is a clause that provides that the funds will be applied after the renewal of all operating licenses for the entire complex. “From two to four months, these authorizations must be granted, including the concession of the Estrada de Ferro do Amapá, a 194-km branch from the mine to the port that returned to the state after Zamin stopped operating. This project has already represented 31% of Amapá's GDP. ”

https://abifer.org.br/en/mina-de-ferro-no-amapa-deve-voltar-a-operar-em-2021/

Old article though

@Barksy1 - I heard the same when I was listening.

Ah well. I will go back and read the thread over the weekend and see. Maybe I wouldn't have to and we will have an answer by then :')

Is this the one maddog?

https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/diarios/305289602/trt-8-judiciario-03-07-2020-pg-775?ref=previous_button

@Maddog - I will check it. Is that the one where they were talking of guarantee?

@maddog - Which document are you referring to? Can you please share it?

Also shipping for early Q3 has already been ruled on April 15th. So that is independent. This is my understanding.

Isb1974 - My opinion is that it will be sorted sooner rather than later. Like someone said earlier, it is matter of livelihood for the locals and it has already been in Judiciary for a while. The recent rulings tend to indicate the courts also prioritise local economy.

@Dallasdaz - Agreed.

The peak was yesterday late afternoon and then a dip (slight comparatively) before close to the same bid and ask as today's opening.

The last sell and buy of yesterday and the first sell and buy of today was for the same price respectively.

Also it doesn't say the courts ruled against the petition. Only says courts have't ruled on it.
As Cadence said ruling on end of the month, I am guessing this RNS is to say it hasn't happened rather than it went against Cadence.

So me keeping fingers crossed.

Also can i interpret negotiations ongoing as the banks are serious about negotiating rather than dragging their feet?

This is the bit I am referring to from 15th of April ruling on the sale of net 10 million $.

And so that it is not claimed that the decision considers only the interests of creditors subject to recovery, I determine that 10% of the sale amount remains deposited for payment to the Union.

https://esaj.tjsp.jus.br/cpopg/show.do?processo.codigo=2S000I22C0000&processo.foro=100&processo.numero=1088747-75.2015.8.26.0100&uuidCaptcha=sajcaptcha_590f41435de04daf9448da46fcf8bae1