AVZ Discussion 2022

[Cumquat Cap]

Surely they’re bought. Wouldn’t really serve much purpose for voting just moving them around from someone that would already vote for Carrick. Unless it’s just to say look I’ve got more than Nigel now but no one would care anyway.

Like him visiting an all you can eat Chinese buffet it won’t be anywhere near enough to fulfil his needs. So it potentially looks like he just wasted half a mil on getting another percent or two but it still won’t be anywhere near enough to the mark to matter.

Utterly bizarre behaviour. Unless he’s expecting a buy out at some point in which case sucks to be whoever sold them to him.

Blocking stake for any potential TO 50%? Alternatively profit when we do so gets paid either way.

He lied at the agm that avz was completely fucked and worthless, turns around and spends 570 + costs. Carrick a world class liar and scumbag. AGM voting won’t change much I agree

 

[Xerof]

We know that all of these movements would have to be off-market transfers, which IIRC, requires a Standard Transfer Form signed by both parties, with names, addresses, number of shares sold, value paid and various ID certifications of the seller. This is sent to Automic directly for Issuer Sponsored shares, or via brokers if CHESS sponsored, for updating of the share register.

Either way, AVZ can access ALL details of off-market transfer movements, and given there is no day-to-day trading involving thousands of transfers daily, these will be standing out like fucking dogs balls, with a carrot attached, in reports generated by Automic for the company

My point is the BoD will know EXACTLY whats gone on, and perhaps that is why they decided to update the T20 after a long intermission, so we can pick it to pieces in public

@obe wan Lithium Plus had 2 holdings @2023, now combined @ 2024, but has 'lost' a few sitting at 164m, down from 176m. Why, I don't know but handing them to Carrick does nothing for voting block as they are both on the same (wrong) side

and @obe wan good point about Yibin possibly playing funny buggers, but AVZ will be all over it......or fucking should be

JMT

 

[Jazz]

Blocking stake for any potential TO 50%? Alternatively profit when we do so gets paid either way.

He lied at the agm that avz was completely fucked and worthless, turns around and spends 570 + costs. Carrick a world class liar and scumbag. AGM voting won’t change much I agree

Agreed, All other votes being equal, 57m votes changes nothing.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Blocking stake for any potential TO 50%? Alternatively profit when we do so gets paid either way.

He lied at the agm that avz was completely fucked and worthless, turns around and spends 570 + costs. Carrick a world class liar and scumbag. AGM voting won’t change much I agree

That would require the same 50% needed to get on the board

I guess the obvious answer is the most likely to be correct. He hoped he would get more.

 

[Hodlandwin69]

What was the maximum shares they offered to buy?

 

[wombat74]

What was the maximum shares they offered to buy?

700mil rings a bell .

 

[Mr_Tones83]

One thing is for certain, I will definitely be notifying ASIC & FIRB of the mysterious changes to the AVZ top twenty holdings , and would encourage all others to do the same!

Cheers,
Nellie

As much as anyone wants to think this is nefarious, there is nothing illegal about having your holdings in custody under a nominee account. The custodian is required to maintain records of the beneficial owner/s of the account under custody.
It is standard practice for insto's and sophisticated investors to hold in custody in this way.
AVZ is able to see through to the ultimate beneficial owner as well.
An example of this even at the retail level is Superhero. They have all holdings on one HIN registered under Superhero's name, and maintain records of the underlying holders on their own books.

 

[Hodlandwin69]

700mil rings a bell .

Lol ok so they got no where near that, bunch of sooky cunts

 

[Winenut]

700mil rings a bell .

Being just shy of 20% of the SOI so as not to raise the attention of FIRB ....possibly????

 

[Carlos Danger]

Being just shy of 20% of the SOI so as not to raise the attention of FIRB ....possibly????

FIRB threshold is 10% and wouldn’t apply here as Resource Fatital Investments is domiciled in Australia

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 606 Prohibition on certain acquisitions of relevant interests in voting shares

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 606
Prohibition on certain acquisitions of relevant interests in voting shares
Acquisition of relevant interests in voting shares through transaction entered into by or on behalf of person acquiring relevant interest
(1) A person must not acquire a relevant interest in issued voting shares in a company if:
(a) the company is:
(i) a listed company; or
(ii) an unlisted company with more than 50 members; and
(b) the person acquiring the interest does so through a transaction in relation to securities entered into by or on behalf of the person; and
(c) because of the transaction, that person's or someone else's voting power in the company increases:
(i) from 20% or below to more than 20%

 

[Winenut]

FIRB threshold is 10% and wouldn’t apply here as Resource Fatital Investments is domiciled in Australia

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 606 Prohibition on certain acquisitions of relevant interests in voting shares

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 606
Prohibition on certain acquisitions of relevant interests in voting shares
Acquisition of relevant interests in voting shares through transaction entered into by or on behalf of person acquiring relevant interest
(1) A person must not acquire a relevant interest in issued voting shares in a company if:
(a) the company is:
(i) a listed company; or
(ii) an unlisted company with more than 50 members; and
(b) the person acquiring the interest does so through a transaction in relation to securities entered into by or on behalf of the person; and
(c) because of the transaction, that person's or someone else's voting power in the company increases:
(i) from 20% or below to more than 20%

Just thought FIRB "might" look further behind Carrotdick and Resource Capital Investments and investigate who might be backing the cnt

But I get that the entity is domiciled in Oz

Not sure about your 10% threshold though

The magic number is when the shareholding moves from below 20% to more than 20%......that's the trigger point

Well I thought it was

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 606
Prohibition on certain acquisitions of relevant interests in voting shares
Acquisition of relevant interests in voting shares through transaction entered into by or on behalf of person acquiring relevant interest
(1) A person must not acquire a relevant interest in issued voting shares in a company if:
(a) the company is:
(i) a listed company; or
(ii) an unlisted company with more than 50 members; and
(b) the person acquiring the interest does so through a transaction in relation to securities entered into by or on behalf of the person; and
(c) because of the transaction, that person's or someone else's voting power in the company increases:
(i) from 20% or below to more than 20%

 

[Carlos Danger]

Just thought FIRB "might" look further behind Carrotdick and Resource Capital Investments and investigate who might be backing the cnt

But I get that the entity is domiciled in Oz

Not sure about your 10% threshold though

The magic number is when the shareholding moves from below 20% to more than 20%......that's the trigger point

Well I thought it was

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 606
Prohibition on certain acquisitions of relevant interests in voting shares
Acquisition of relevant interests in voting shares through transaction entered into by or on behalf of person acquiring relevant interest
(1) A person must not acquire a relevant interest in issued voting shares in a company if:
(a) the company is:
(i) a listed company; or
(ii) an unlisted company with more than 50 members; and
(b) the person acquiring the interest does so through a transaction in relation to securities entered into by or on behalf of the person; and
(c) because of the transaction, that person's or someone else's voting power in the company increases:
(i) from 20% or below to more than 20%

The 10% is the level Yibin were denied at because it gives the holder an option of an automatic board seat. Which would serve Carrick's purpose anyway if he got to that.

And yes I can read the legislation I quoted that is for any holder regardless of domiciled jurisdiction. Anything above this is prohibited unless the acquisition occurs via a specified exception (such as a takeover bid, scheme of arrangement or with target shareholder approval).

Just ask Gina how her LTR holding is going

 

[Winenut]

The 10% is the level Yibin were denied at because it gives the holder an option of an automatic board seat. Which would serve Carrick's purpose anyway if he got to that.

And yes I can read the legislation I quoted that is for any holder regardless of domiciled jurisdiction. Anything above this is prohibited unless the acquisition occurs via a specified exception (such as a takeover bid, scheme of arrangement or with target shareholder approval).

Just ask Gina how her LTR holding is going

Gotcha

 

[oxxa23]

Haplo just shared on X... may completely be avz unrelated... but.. anyway...

 

[PhatCatz]

Haplo just shared on X... may completely be avz unrelated... but.. anyway...

View attachment 70351

Might be super coincidental. But when Rio checked in at DRC a few month back. Check thier share price appreciation from that point onwards. I feel like it’s just purely coincidental. But you never know.

 

[Randenj]

Haplo just shared on X... may completely be avz unrelated... but.. anyway...

View attachment 70351

I'm happy to do a share swap at 50:1............

 

[Rediah]

Hmmmm

 

[Dazmac66]

"There will be a resolution soon" next sentence "I don't know when the situation will be resolved" This is how we roll in the AVZ shitshow!!
BTW thanks for posting Rediah

 

[j.l]

Hmmmm

View attachment 70356

Sheesh!

If that is to be believed, that's some high level attention right there.

I wonder what "ensuring the state gets its fair share" boils down to for us plebs...

 

[Frank]

x.com

x.com

x.com

x.com

x.com

x.com