RUN COMPARISON

What changed when shareholders refused to put money in?

Run 4 takes IG4 cash out of the base case, treats Elliott as voting no unless Petrobras promises extra support if tests are missed, and separates a placeholder filing from a finished deal.

Run 3 to Run 4

IssueRun 3 · 18 AugRun 4 · 18 Aug eveningReason
Next stepA finished out-of-court deal, with IG4 putting in cashA placeholder filing if other bondholders and banks supply the one-third; Elliott / Contrarian say no unless Petrobras promises extra cash if tests are missedPipeline reported no shareholder injection. O Globo reported a filing next week.
Placeholder filingFolded into the 48% “base deal”38%Filing for more time is no longer treated as the same event as a finished, court-approved plan.
Finished out-of-court deal48%14%No IG4 cash and no Petrobras backstop. A finished plan still needs more than half of the notes.
Court restructuring23%39%Elliott’s no, no new shareholder money, and the 24 August deadline make a court case about as likely as a placeholder filing.
IG4 / Shine IUS$300 million funded plus a US$50 million backstopUS$0 from the fundPipeline: no willingness to inject. A last-resort US$125–150 million is mentioned, not assumed.
PetrobrasUS$500–750 million of naphtha terms; no guaranteeAbout US$500 million of later naphtha payments, still unsigned; backstop rejectedTuesday’s ask that Petrobras inject cash if tests fail is off the table. Paying later for naphtha is not new equity.
Warrants in a finished deal15%, rising to 22.5%17.5%, rising to 25%Run 3’s 15% assumed IG4 cash. That cash is gone.

The key correction

Run 3 still assumed IG4 would put about US$300 million into Braskem so creditors would take 15% warrants. Pipeline reported that neither IG4 nor Petrobras is willing to inject capital. The 48% finished deal is retired. The live choice is a placeholder filing versus a court case.

Run 2 to Run 3

The midday 18 August rerun added Braskem Idesa’s prepack and the remaining US$350 million parent cheque. It still assumed a Shine recap.

IssueRun 2 · 17 AugRun 3 · 18 AugReason
MexicoProspective ring-fence; no new parent cash beyond existing loansSeparate SDTX prepack; US$476M cap, about US$350M remainingThe 18 August 6-K made Mexico a filed estate and a live cash use.
Base EJ55%48%Closing Mexico contagion helped a Monday filing. Thinner parent cash hurt a completed deal.
RJ17%23%The remaining Idesa cheque made an empty 24 August a first-order RJ path.
IG4 / Shine IUS$300M plus US$50M backstopSame number; Idesa US$476M does not countRun 3 still treated Shine cash as the clearing chip.

Run 1 to Run 2

The 17 August rerun incorporated the Valor report on Petrobras naphtha terms.

IssueRun 1 · 16 AugRun 2 · 17 AugReason
Petrobras supportUS$550M capped supportUS$500M firm plus up to US$250M conditional naphtha creditThe 17 August report specifies commercial supplier credit. Six months is worth nearly US$950M at the June-plan purchase rate, but that is a ceiling, not a commitment.
LC supportUS$1.1B combined liquidity poolUS$572M Q3 rollover plus US$300M incremental capacityRun 2 separates rollover from genuinely new capacity to avoid double counting.
IG4 / Shine IUS$275MUS$300M funded plus US$50M backstopRun 2 asked the controller for more clearly loss-absorbing capital.
Post-relief coupon+200bp+150bpMore explicit working-capital support reduced the required coupon premium in the base case.
RJ probability15%17%Reported Petrobras support improved bridge feasibility, but it was not binding.

Third-quarter cases, not forecasts

US$586M

The company’s June planning case. After the remaining Idesa cash and no IG4 money, weak cash conversion raises a court case to about 50%.

US$750M

A sensitivity only. Signed US$500 million of naphtha terms helps a placeholder filing. It does not get Elliott to approve a finished plan.

Nothing filed by Monday

No parent filing by 24 August is a 75% court case in this run.