Member Info for observer842

KDNC being a takeover target has been crossing my mind recently, I'd be more concerned by a low ball offer if the BoD didn't have recently issued options at 29p!

Good idea, and good progress on correlating the dates!

Indeed @EV. The courts do seem mostly to be summarising what has already happened. Interesting find about calendar days from 2160378-61.2021.8.26.0000, though this particular case doesn't look important to us.

Agreed @Bannor, they won't be getting any gold stars for attention to detail from me. Hopefully we pay others to do that where it really matters!

Hello @Ivybush! Do the shares they bought in November and December total £180k?

@EV. Beat me to it. We mention: "Iron Ore 62% Fe, CFR China at US$167.05 per tonne (26/02/2021)", but don't clarify that we are actually selling 58% @$141,14/t

Let's see if this forces us to release the name of the buyer in an RNS :-)))

This looks like the important bit from last night's decision - which could be a few weeks old as noted... (it's confusing!)

===[
19) Page 19575/19587 (The Banks Union presents updates on of the conclusion of the Agreement with the Debtor, ratifies the validity of its guarantees fiduciaries, highlights that there is no legal basis for the Debtor's thesis regarding the loss of effectiveness of fiduciary guarantees and informs that the data regarding the sale of the ore ironworks passed by the Debtor did not comply with the request by the Union of Banks. Requires the subpoena of the Debtor "to express its interest in (a) giving up the requests made in the New Debtor Manifestation, or, alternatively (b) agree with the suspension of the assessment of the requests made in the New Debtor Manifestation, with the which the Union immediately agrees" and alternatively requests that the Debtors' requests dealing with the validity of the guarantees. 34. Finally, “it reiterates the requests made in the Union Manifestation (pages 18,447/18,459), including for the Debtor and Cadence clarify, in a public and transparent manner, in the scope of this Judicial Reorganization, the discrepancies of information disclosed in these records and in the communiqué published by Cadence on 03/29/2021, as well as informing: (bi) the conditions of sale, including price, quantity of iron ore, form of payment, identity of the buyer(s), the relationships that maintain (or maintain), if applicable, with the Debtor, its investors and their representatives and related parties, and (b.ii) detailed description of all costs and expenses that would be deducted to enable the sale.” ); Manifestation of Judicial Administrator on the matter attached in 19,796/19,809. Say the recovering one and investors within 10 days.
]===

I do suspect some of that request is dated, as at least some of the information requested has been published already - e.g. the buyer is clearly Glencore. In fact, I suspect all of the information requested has already been published in the hoard...

And that $4m (Actually $3,934k) for the third ship appears to be on a contract price of $141,14/t (same for all ships), likely agreed in February/March when prices were significantly less than today's ;-) So I'd say at today's prices that estimate of $110m net from the stockpiles is quite conservative!

Just closed 3-4% up across the board :-)))

http://www.dce.com.cn/webquote/futures_quote_en.jsp?varietyid=I

If we continue to net circa $4m per ship we should be looking at over $110m net from the stock piles! :-))) Significantly up from corporate estimates.

Good find @jimb - backs up what @Tradecraft posted the other day.

Does that mean from your point of view there is an increased or decreased chance HS is for DEV's ore? And consequently a change of probability the deal goes through before it is loaded? ;-)

Do you think Medi Brisbane (2nd shipment) agency recorded as LBH at: http://www.docasdesantana.com.br/index.php/operacional/programacao-de-navios is not correct? If there is evidence that it was actually ServePorto then you might have won me over ;-)

Nice spot. If the DEV ship due in on Monday is for DEV's ore then it's certainly possible the big one could land tomorrow or Monday... We know the first 3 ships were for DEV's ore and the 4th was for someone else's. 4 named ships on the horizon - could they really be all for this same other? At least DEV is presumably making money from this side venture, and of course the PFS is in progress from recently raised funds from the sale of the iron ore - so waiting isn't all bad... ;-)

I was mistaken, the JRP included in the second set of hoard minutes is the same as that we found here over a year ago:

https://pje.trt8.jus.br/primeirograu/Processo/ConsultaDocumento/listView.seam
20012416350764800000023996777

Nothing extra in that, but lots of extra around it and in other documents :-)

Indeed. Took me a long time to read everything, well most everything. I think! And I couldn't be bothered to read the JRP again, though I noticed some aspects which were previously redacted weren't this time. I think. Maybe I should check...

If it is about shipping more ore in the absence of the deal going through imminently (nothing is certain), they may have decided that appealing an old case was simpler/quicker? Hopefully you are right, but it sure would be nice to know exactly why they have decided to this at this time! Maybe the hoard will be forthcoming in time... Presumably you read the timeline of events nicely summarised?

What makes you think that? Are you sure you aren't just wishful thinking? Not trying to be negative, just you are better at reading/understanding the court movements than me! :-)))

The one about allowing sale of $6m of ore? Too complicated for me to unpick what they are appealing against, if indeed they are...

Currently scheduled to dock the following day... :-))) It's got DEV's name on it, but whether it's for DEV's ore is uncertain... And besides, DEV can only ship a hold or two before reaching $10m net.