Member Info for EV_Bull

Given the high ore prices it’s in everyone’s interest to “strike while the iron’s hot”. Personally I am expecting the conclusion of this within a month and great rewards for a small amount of patience.

Important to remember that being a lth or not doesn’t make a difference to the share price or the deal.

Some movements on the shipping appeal case 2255812-14.2020.8.26.0000 (2nd degree) -- perhaps the finalisation we were expecting?
02/17/2021 Conclusions for the Rapporteur
Conclusion of Conclusion - Rapporteur (with movement)
The previous judge Pereira Calças has also recently retired and a new judge appointed.

Dev has a private port half refurbished after the collapse, I expect they are exploring options of if and how it can be used instead of trucking it all over to the public port.

@obs yes I believe that is the "motion for clarification" we were discussing. Published in today's journal 18th Feb so presumably the motion is in effect now.

Many LTH that bought during the commodities / lithium bull market 3+ years ago could have bought many other companies SAV, BCN, EMH etc etc to name a few and experienced the same losses. Anyone getting in over the past year (or those that averaged down) have been and will be very nicely rewarded. Covid has accelerated the shift to EV and local suppy chains (EU) will be very much in demand.

I guess mr negative was already taken then. too bad.

Agreed isb... MrC of course it is speculating but based on what we have been told recently (AGM, Courts, RNS & Podcast) and also deduced for ourselves all of which has been very positive.
The other thing I would add is that Iron Ore prices are substantially higher than they were 3 months ago which makes a massive difference to the value of the mine & stockpiles and predicted to stay high.

The following should now be imminent re Amapa and will have a huge positive impact to SP:
Start of Shipping of net $10m from stockpiles
Bank Settlement finalised
20% Stake in Amapa JV
Scoping study (updated NPV)
Start of recommissioning studies & work
Shipping the rest of the stockpiles

Also expecting offtake news from EMH

@obs it is a public holiday in Brazil today (Shrove Tuesday) so any "movements" are likely to be at least tomorrow.

Thanks obs, very Interesting. so there is a metric **** ton of iron ore stockpiled then and a large portion belongs to Gerald perhaps now the value has gone up they are owed less so there is more left over for dev / banks, or the banks were including it in their calculations when working out the $300m? May explain why we've only heard about 1.3mt of it. I wonder if the amount owed was price or quantity based?

@obs do we what the current situation is with Gerald Metals it seems they could still be owed some from the stockpiles which could explain the discrepancy?
------ JRP
4.5.2. GERALD. Whereas the recovery has failed to judicial recovery plan approved on 4 April 2017, and considering the court decision that determined the inclusion of Gerald's credit in the general framework of creditors, the parties they agreed on the following terms.
4.5.2.1. When requested by Gerald, the Recuperanda carried out the transport of iron ore from the mine to the port for a fair price, based on good faith negotiations, with Gerald and will not create any obstacles to the withdrawal and embarkation of that iron ore subject to availability of infrastructure in accordance with the law. Of the same way, the Recuperanda will guarantee, continuously, free access Gerald or third parties indicated by her, including drive and transport from the mine, to the ore of (including access to the port and the railway) and you may not charge of Gerald any past or future costs for the use of space where iron ore is or has been stored, until its full removal. Any attempt to sell by Recovery of iron ore will be considered a failure to comply with that clause. The recovery should cooperate fully with Gerald for the transport of ore from iron.
4.5.2.2. The Recuperanda within the limits of the acts of its competence it is responsible for providing invoices and all documents required by government for export of iron ore. Costs not related to issuance of the invoice and the export competition will be supported by Gerald.
4.5.2.3. Recuperanda and Gerald should negotiate in good faith the details and measures required for the implementation of the above clauses, immediately after the date of ratification, including negotiating a reasonable period of time for removal of iron ore when and provided that infrastructure is available.
4.5.2.5. Gerald's 0 credit is taken, but first of all the Iron being exported by Gerald. the their political rights for the specific purpose of voting and participate in this judicial recovery, in the amount of the claim as definitively included in the general framework of creditors by court order.
-----

Union of Banks requires that the Administrator Judicial inform "the status of the delivery of iron ore from Zamin to Gerald Metals SA, in compliance with the judicial recovery plan), Fls. 17.318 / 17.319 (Judicial Administrator requires the summons of Recuperanda and Geralds Metals SA to clarify the progress of the donation in payment of iron ore provided for in the PRJ), Fls. 17.326 / 17.331 (Geralds Metals SA responds to the opinion of the Judicial Administrator on pages 17.318 / 17.319 in order to explain its right to receive stockpiled iron ore
------

@obs as for how do they get the data, there's an API to pull the data out so no captcha required, we're not missing anything and there's no extra magic so I really wouldn't think too hard about it :-).
https://api.tjsp.jus.br/selodigital/docs

Not too much longer to wait now just a little more patience required. The share price is still massively under my own estimates of true value given the economics of Amapa. The court documents say there is enough stockpile to easily pay off the banks with plenty left over and that's at $117/t far below todays price. This seems to indicate a potentially larger stockpile than we've heard about. Any ideas where those numbers come from? Some more ore stashed away somewhere? Anyone still satellite watching?

I believe given current knowledge the SP is roughly half of what it should be.

From the judgement:
------
the entire volume of iron ore stock given as a fiduciary guarantee, thanks to which, admittedly enough to pay off the aggravating bank union credit. In this light, as explained by the recoveree in the counter-draft, “(...) 39. Furthermore, it is necessary to highlight that Embargado himself has already expressly expressed himself in his credit challenge incident (process nº 0015946-47.2016.8.26.0100) that the amount of iron ore in existence is much higher than the amount of the guaranteed debt, a fact corroborated by the creditors' committee: 2. In its credit challenge (process no. 0015946- 47.2016.8.26.0100, pages 898), says the Union of Banks that the Fiduciary Sale of Iron Ore would greatly exceed its credit (considering a quote of USD53.65 per ton) would total approximately USD 160 million. In turn, on the present date, the price is above USD 88 , 45 a ton, so there was an excess of guarantee, since the value of iron ore would reach USD 265 million, that is, an excess of more than 135 million dollars. (https://in.investing.com/commodities/iron-ore-62-cfr-futures). 3. The credit of the Banking Syndicate would remain a holder of sufficient guarantee, in the event of the sale of USD 10 million, destined to the payment of labor and low-income creditors 40. As noted, such statements were made when the price of iron ore was at USD88 per ton, and currently the price of iron ore is higher than USD 117.00 per ton, that is, there would be more than 300 million dollars in guarantee.1. 41. Evidently, if at that time, when the value of the asset was 25% (twenty-five percent) less than at the current moment, Embargado defended the existence of an excess guarantee, the allegation of danger of damage with the sale of the ore iron at the present time has no condition to prosper
---------

The summary is literally the first part of the judgement document which is the text that is in bold so nothing new there. I think you are reading too much in to it :-)

It doesn't mean anything.... you may not be aware but the jusbrazil (https://www.jusbrasil.com.br/) site linked is an unofficial third party run site and just scrapes the data from the official "e-SAJ" tjsp site hence the delay in publishing the judgement. They are just a few days behind I guess, it has a better search than the official site so useful for finding stuff. Official site is https://esaj.tjsp.jus.br/

@obs that is the same judgement which was published 6 days ago as per the RNS.

@tomcat I am referring to this part of the recent RNS:
"Yesterday the Upper Court rejected the Bank Creditors appeal ("the Ruling"), and once the Ruling is effective (up to one week from the date of publication), the interim order is annulled, and DEV's original petition is valid. This will allow the recommencement of port operations and the shipment of iron ore stockpiles"

What I am saying is potentially the court filings that happened on Friday are (part of) what is referenced above.
Presumably the next RNS (due imminently) will be "The Ruling is now effective" and confirmation of "recommencement of port operations and the shipment of iron ore stockpiles" as above.

In other words... more good news.

More interesting to me is the most recent "Intermediate Petition - Digitization" Date: 12/02/2021 13:16
The intermediate petition being the shipping appeal and it now being digitised is possibly what Kiran was referencing waiting for which would legally allow operations to begin and potentially the next RNS release.

Hi, I am almost certain, I did a fair bit of research and it made sense to me.
Source:
Portuguese term or phrase: embargos de declaração
English translation: motion for clarification
https://www.proz.com/kudoz/portuguese-to-english/law-general/1399449-embargos-de-declara%C3%A7%C3%A3o.html
This is a legal term and nothing to do with the "embargo" in the english sense although an easy mistake to make.

A “motion for clarification” is a request for an explanation from the court as to the meaning of a prior, allegedly unclear, order.
Occam's razor: of two explanations that account for all the facts, the simpler one is more likely to be correct.

Hi, You should factor the following in to your 17,500tpa calculations:
---
Sonora Lithium Ltd ("SLL") is the operational holding company for the Sonora Lithium Project and owns 100% of the La Ventana concession. The La Ventana concession accounts for 88% of the mined ore feed in the Sonora Feasibility Study which covers the initial 19 years of the project mine life. On completion of this option exercise, SLL will be owned 50% by Bacanora and 50% by Ganfeng Lithium Co., Ltd. SLL also owns 70% of the El Sauz and Fleur concessions.
--
It doesn't appear that the figures on the website currently reflect this.