DAX-0,10 % EUR/USD-0,14 % Gold+0,23 % Öl (Brent)+0,50 %

Hammer News - 1 Mrd. USD-Award zugesprochen - Marktkapitalisierung bei 82 Mio!!! (Seite 48)


WKN: A0LHL7 | Symbol: RML
0,062
24.04.19
Tradegate
+2,83 %
+0,002 EUR

Begriffe und/oder Benutzer

 

Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 59.280.976 von Isengrad am 22.11.18 21:13:53Wie bereits geschrieben und von Stockhouse verlinkt: das Urteil wird sich auf die alten Versuche beziehen, eine gerichtliche Anordnung zu erwirken. Darüber hinaus sind die Daten das Wichtige für die Venezolaner, d.h. die erste Rate werden sie ziemlich sicher innerhalb oder kurz außerhalb der Frist bezahlen, um ihre US-Assets zu behalten und die Daten zu erhalten. Was danach passiert, steht auf einem anderen Blatt Papier, wie die anderen Beispiele ja auch zeigen. Aber auch dort wurden die initialen Zahlungen geleistet, wenn ich das richtig sehe. Von daher war ein Kurs von 0,12 CAD gestern teilweise schon blanker Irrsinn. Hatte allerdings gehofft, dass er noch weiter gedrückt wird. So habe ich aber auch inzwischen einen durchaus ansehnlichen Durchschnitt bei einer allerdings nicht so großen Anzahl Aktien, so dass ich dem Ganzen entspannt entgegen sehen kann
es ist immer grenzlagig, einen Vorgang zu beurteilen, wenn man nur die Headline kennt (oder hat jemand Zugriff auf den kompletten Artikel?). Nicht umsonst habe ich in #456 den Konjunktiv gewählt.

Gegen die Vermutung des Stockhouse-Users spricht allerdings, dass nicht Rusoro den Antrag zurück gezogen hat, sondern dieser vom Gericht verworfen wurde. Ohne Kenntnis der Gründe bleibt das indes alles vage und Spekulationen in die eine oder andere Richtung sind müßig. Es bleibt wie bisher abzuwarten, ob

- Rusoro die Initialzahlung leistet und/oder
- eine Stellungnahme zu dem Gerichtsurteil abgibt.

All das ändert natürlich nichts an den grundsätzlichen Ansprüchen von Rusoro. Offen bleibt, wie bislang, wann diese erfüllt werden.
Der Antrag wurde vom Gericht zurückgewiesen da es zwischenzeitlich ein Vergleich geschlossen wurde und die Frist zur Zahlung der ersten Rate noch nicht abgelaufen ist.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 59.283.883 von xMarcelx am 23.11.18 11:22:48Quelle/Beleg für diese Behauptung?
IMO - Rusoro acted to quickly and of course it would get pushback as novemeber isn't up yet. This week and next will be the true tale of this SP. Article: Rusoro's Venezuelan Asset Bid Nixed Following $1.2B Deal Share us on: By Caroline Simson Law360 (November 21, 2018, 3:43 PM EST) -- A D.C. federal judge on Wednesday nixed an attempt by Rusoro Mining to begin pinning down Venezuelan assets to enforce a $1.2 billion arbitral award issued after its investments in the country were seized, several weeks after the Canadian miner announced it had settled the dispute with the financially ailing nation. Rusoro won the award from an international tribunal after Venezuela nationalized its mining assets in the country without compensation, and U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon of the D.C. federal court confirmed the award earlier this year. A few weeks later, Rusoro urged the court to allow it to register the judgment in other districts and to begin attaching Venezuela's assets, but the motion remained pending while Venezuela swapped its counsel and kicked off an appeal before the D.C. Circuit. Meanwhile, in August, a Delaware federal judge allowed Crystallex International Corp., which holds a $1.4 billion arbitral award against Venezuela over a canceled mining project, to seize shares in PDV Holding Inc., a subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, Petrleos de Venezuela SA, whose most significant U.S. asset is Citgo. Execution on the PDVH shares has, for the moment, been paused pending an appeal. Rusoro, too, had been seeking to attach PDVSA's shares of PDVH, but the calculus apparently changed in October, when Rusoro announced that it had inked a $1.28 billion settlement with Venezuela in exchange for the company's mining data. Still, the settlement leaves room for Rusoro to resume legal enforcement of the award if the settlement goes unpaid, the company said at the time. Although records in the D.C. federal court case do not show that Rusoro informed the court about the settlement, Judge Leon nevertheless issued a brief order on Wednesday denying Rusoro's bid seeking permission to seize Venezuelan assets. "After considering the briefs of both parties in relation to that motion, and the entire record in this case, this court determines that (a) a reasonable period of time has not elapsed since the entry of judgment in this case such that petitioner may seek to attach respondent's assets to aid in the execution of that judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1610(c); and (b) petitioner has not shown good cause to register the judgment in other judicial districts in the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1963," the judge wrote, not explaining his reasoning. Counsel for Venezuela declined to comment on Wednesday. Counsel for Rusoro could not immediately be reached for comment. Over the last few years, Venezuela's financial situation has become ever more dire as the country has been saddled with billions of dollars worth of judgments issued to foreign investors whose businesses there were expropriated without compensation under former President Hugo Chvez. The judgments against Venezuela from international arbitration tribunals include the more than $1.2 billion arbitral award issued to Rusoro and the $1.2 billion judgment to Crystallex; a more than $372 million arbitral award issued to OI European Group BV; and a nearly $307 million award issued to two Swiss Koch Industries Inc. affiliates. Other pending claims against Venezuela include one filed by Air Canada and one filed by three Dutch ConocoPhillips subsidiaries that could result in an award potentially worth billions of dollars. Meanwhile, there's also the holders of sovereign and PDVSA bonds, along with the holders of certain promissory notes mostly issued by PDVSA. The country has settled several disputes with its creditors, reaching a $2 billion settlement with ConocoPhillips earlier this year and a $1.03 billion settlement with Washington state-based mining company Gold Reserve Inc., although a significant amount of the latter settlement remains unpaid. A settlement between Crystallex and Venezuela that was approved by a Canadian court late last year has apparently not resolved their dispute. So the ruling in the Crystallex case in Delaware had caused many of these creditors to begin taking more definitive action to collect their judgments. In its motion before the court earlier this year seeking permission to begin seizing Venezuela's assets, Rusoro argued that Venezuelan government officials had repeatedly stated that they would defy international courts and tribunals, and would refuse to pay Venezuelas creditors. The company noted that Venezuela had already faced litigation for allegedly looting several of PDVSA's U.S. subsidiaries by having them take on US$ 2.8 billion in debt and transferring the proceeds of this debt out of the U.S. But in response, Venezuela disputed the argument that it intended to defy its creditors, saying Rusoro had based this allegation on a "six-year-old, out-of-context statement" by Venezuelas former president, and that the company has settled "numerous arbitral awards." As for allegations that it had orchestrated fraudulent transfers, Venezuela pointed out that the litigation in question had been brought against PDVSA and its subsidiaries. Venezuela is represented by Stephen K. Wirth, Daniel R. Bernstein, Kent A. Yalowitz, Michael A. Lynn and Seth R. Grantier of Arnold & Porter. Rusoro is represented by James E. Berger and Charlene C. Sun of King & Spalding LLP. The case is Rusoro Mining Ltd. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, case number 1:16-cv-02020, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 59.284.363 von xMarcelx am 23.11.18 12:15:41merci.

das ist m.E. der entscheidende Part:

"Although records in the D.C. federal court case do not show that Rusoro informed the court about the settlement, Judge Leon nevertheless issued a brief order on Wednesday denying Rusoro's bid seeking permission to seize Venezuelan assets. "After considering the briefs of both parties in relation to that motion, and the entire record in this case, this court determines that (a) a reasonable period of time has not elapsed since the entry of judgment in this case such that petitioner may seek to attach respondent's assets to aid in the execution of that judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1610(c); and (b) petitioner has not shown good cause to register the judgment in other judicial districts in the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1963," the judge wrote, not explaining his reasoning."
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 59.284.660 von IllePille am 23.11.18 12:51:11"Although records in the D.C. federal court case do not show that Rusoro informed the court about the settlement, Judge Leon nevertheless issued a brief order on Wednesday denying Rusoro's bid seeking permission to seize Venezuelan assets.


und das verstehe ich nicht ganz
Antwort auf Beitrag Nr.: 59.284.768 von donnerpower am 23.11.18 13:04:07das macht im Kontext mit den nachfolgenden Sätzen Sinn. Aus diesen geht hervor, dass der Richter aus eher formalen Gründen das Ansinnen von Rusoro abschlägig beschieden hat:

- a reasonable period of time has not elapsed since the entry of judgment
- petitioner has not shown good cause to register the judgment in other judicial districts

Das Abkommen zwischen Rusoro und Venezuela spielt hierbei - dem Artikel zufolge - überhaupt keine Rolle. Insofern teile ich auch nicht die Einschätzung, es habe sich nichts geändert. Den oben zitierten zwei Punkten zufolge könnte Rusoro im Fall der Nichtleistung seitens Venezuela keinesfalls umgehend Vermögenswerte beschlagnahmen lassen, sondern müsste zunächst die beiden Auflagen erfüllen. Das ist ein klarer Rückschlag, wenngleich "nur" zeitlicher Natur.

Was man aber auch nicht vergessen darf, insbesondere diejenigen, die hier vom schnellen Dollar träumen, ist die Vielzahl der aus Verstaatlichungen resultierenden Gläubiger, auf die der Artikel am Rande hinweist. Wobei das in diesem Thread auch schon thematisiert wurde. Soll heißen, selbst bei bestem Willen auf Seiten der ven. Verantwortlichen fehlt schlicht das nötige Kapital, um all diese Ansprüche zeitnah aus der Welt zu schaffen.
 Durchsuchen


Beitrag zu dieser Diskussion schreiben