Member Info for observer842

Yes @tomcat, but on "05/28/2020: Suspension of the Term. Deadline for the user was changed to 02/07/2020 due to the change in the holiday schedule", presumably relates to the 60 days and holiday schedule likely meaning COVID related. But presumably our June hearing will trump this now anyway.

Anyone been able to read the petitions yet and unravel the timeline in conjunction with our RNS's?

I'm wondering if this from our RNS is being disingenuous:

"The secured creditors have objected to the commercial court of São Paulo in relation to its decision and on 12 June 2020 after market hours filed a petition, none the less the original ruling still remains in force."

i.e. the petition by the banks failed as judged yesterday, as @Ivy perhaps was getting at?

Sounds interesting @tomcat. Do share! :-)

Direct link:

https://esaj.tjsp.jus.br/cpopg/show.do?processo.codigo=2S000I22C0000&processo.foro=100

@tomcat. The trail isn't convoluted, it's literally one click off the page I linked to. :-)

In the interests of balance I should point out even though at the top of page we are talking about it indicates: "Share value: R $ 60,000,000.00", I personally don't think this is the value being argued over. It just seems too small IMHO. I hope it is though!

This is one of the key points for me which make me believe we'll ultimately get ruling in our favour:

"However, as the Judicial Administrator observed when reporting the dynamics of the negotiations, there is no consensus among the banks that make up the Union regarding the structure of receiving credit, some demanding payment in cash for a fraction of the credit and others tolerating a part of the loan. cash payment and another with the sale of iron ore. We understand the difficulty of a solution that will also satisfy banks of different nationalities, controllers and receipt expectations, but this internal division cannot hinder the implementation of the recovery plan for so long. The rest of the interested parties made their efforts for the recovery plan to be implemented"

If anyone needs a hand following the trail - just say, I thought you deserved a bit of "fun" completing the last step since it took me a few hours of "fun" to get to that point! ;-)

Nice @Ivy! Am I right in thinking they are arguing over $11.5m which is a FRACTION of what we were bandying about on the weekend! :-))))

Did you manage to read the judgement from 2 months ago? Explains a lot, and I feel more confident now than I did earlier!

http://www.tjsp.jus.br/Noticias/Noticia?codigoNoticia=40267

Follow the trail...

I found something you'll find *very* interesting @tomcat.

Not that I know of. I suspect they aren't public.

:-) stfu it is.

Nervous?

Indeed @tomcat. It's going to be an interesting rest of the month. Looks like some are more nervous than me judging by the sells this morning, or they are looking for the trade. Might happen, especially if a certain poster keeps using the word nervous and the sentiment bots pick up on it. LoL. :-) That'll throw em. For good measure: LoL. LoL. ;-)

@tomcat: "an alternative option to bankruptcy..." What's your take? Worth a read of this:

"Restructuring & Insolvency in Brazil" (April 8 2019)
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8028113b-3912-4ae4-b181-cd687061e738

If you believe this is all about stalling for as long as possible, then the banks presumably have more to gain out of liquidation? IMHO the courts saw through this back in April when they ruled we could commence shipping.

It seems that way @tomcat (JRP or bankruptcy). Presumably our lawyers believe what we have put on the table is fair and are confident that the courts will agree with our assessment, otherwise... Also, delays keep lawyers in jobs, it would not have suited the bank's lawyers one bit to agree to a deal last year - why won't somebody think of their children! LoL. :-)))

I can't dismiss that I'm not personally nervous though! But will I be de-risking in single figures before the judgement? No. I'm looking to top up still! ;-)

I think I see what you are getting at @tomcat, but remember it was recently ruled that despite the "fraudulent" sale (to purportedly avoid their responsibilities), Anglo are still on the hook for the labour costs. So from the point of view of the courts they probably don't care if it was fraudulent or not anymore :-)))

I wish @Kiran would stop being clever and spell it Amapa when used in a headline and not Amapá - LSE and some others can't cope!

I do wonder if the banks know what is coming, they are going to get a whipping, just that they can't agree to it themselves, it has to be ruled on them. If you were in that job would you rather agree to a poor deal, or have someone else force it upon you?The latter outcome is much more palatable to return home to your masters with...