AVZ Discussion 2022

[yaseenmeoncebefore]

Hey ASIC. The SPA’s were completed. Looks like I need to add you dipshits to the list of idiots that don’t understand how contracts work lmao

Carlos, I agree that AVZ completed the required steps and the SPA's were completed as confirmed by the ICC. However, I think the issue is that Cong was using the corrupt DRC legal system to try to reverse the agreements and whether this attempt/dispute needed to be disclosed.

ASIC are stating that AVZ had not completed the acquisition:

and there was a decision that went against us in the High Court of Lubumbashi:

If court rulings/decisions to take a portion of our asset off us and destroy share certificates are made in the DRC, is this not material? If a court ruling goes against us in the DRC where our only asset is, then I think AVZ may have a very hard time arguing that it is just media speculation/spurious/immaterial.

I know that:
- the High Court of Lubumbashi should not have jurisdiction
- Cong likely bribed the judge
- they don't follow the rule of law
- AVZ did everything required to complete the SPA's

but these thieves attempting to illegally take the asset (or a portion of it) off us and disputing transactions, obtaining rulings in the corrupt DRC legal system, destroying share certificates etc, are still material pieces of information. Would you not think that ASIC would have a case that these dispute/s were material and should have been disclosed?

The whole plan to steal the asset off us by the DRC Government/CAMI/Cominiere/Zijin/Cong is completely illegal. However, the result is that AVZ simply cannot mine Manono. The result is that AVZ loses billions $$$. So regardless of whether it is illegal or not, whether this is how contracts should work or not, it is and was very, very material.

In your view, is the detail that will save us, the fact that the joint venture agreement required disputes to go to ICC to be resolved and therefore the High Court of Lubumbashi never had jurisdiction? Can it therefore simply be ignored and not disclosed?

I am going back and forth with this a bit.

- AVZ completed the required steps
- DRC court did not have jurisdiction
- ICC upheld AVZ's position

However, there are still a lot of things in here that I think shareholders would have certainly liked to know at the time. Do you think ASIC have any case that some of these items should have been disclosed?

I really despise those who have ripped us off. My hope is that AVZ can still sell the asset in the near term.


Edit - the more I go over the list of items the better I feel about it. Dathomir's attempts to terminate the agreements, not accept payment etc...well ICC upheld AVZ's position, so tough shit. The Lubumbashi court did not have jurisdiction. I suppose the thing that would really solidify this attempt as being spurious is if AVZ had concrete evidence of corruption here, but that might be hard to obtain. I suppose the verdict being totally at odds with the ICC goes some way to showing this. I do agree with Item l, referring to there being significant risk about further performance, however I suppose this depends on the definition of performance. If DRC do not uphold their own rule of law or perform where required by law it is not really the fault of AVZ.

 

[BB66]

Carlos, I agree that AVZ completed the required steps and the SPA's were completed as confirmed by the ICC. However, I think the issue is that Cong was using the corrupt DRC legal system to try to reverse the agreements and whether this attempt/dispute needed to be disclosed.

ASIC are stating that AVZ had not completed the acquisition:


View attachment 92949



and there was a decision that went against us in the High Court of Lubumbashi:


View attachment 92948




If court rulings/decisions to take a portion of our asset off us and destroy share certificates are made in the DRC, is this not material? If a court ruling goes against us in the DRC where our only asset is, then I think AVZ may have a very hard time arguing that it is just media speculation/spurious/immaterial.

I know that:
- the High Court of Lubumbashi should not have jurisdiction
- Cong likely bribed the judge
- they don't follow the rule of law
- AVZ did everything required to complete the SPA's

but these thieves attempting to illegally take the asset (or a portion of it) off us and disputing transactions, obtaining rulings in the corrupt DRC legal system, destroying share certificates etc, are still material pieces of information. Would you not think that ASIC would have a case that these dispute/s were material and should have been disclosed?

The whole plan to steal the asset off us by the DRC Government/CAMI/Cominiere/Zijin/Cong is completely illegal. However, the result is that AVZ simply cannot mine Manono. The result is that AVZ loses billions $$$. So regardless of whether it is illegal or not, whether this is how contracts should work or not, it is and was very, very material.

In your view, is the detail that will save us, the fact that the joint venture agreement required disputes to go to ICC to be resolved and therefore the High Court of Lubumbashi never had jurisdiction? Can it therefore simply be ignored and not disclosed?

I am going back and forth with this a bit.

- AVZ completed the required steps
- DRC court did not have jurisdiction
- ICC upheld AVZ's position

However, there are still a lot of things in here that I think shareholders would have certainly liked to know at the time. Do you think ASIC have any case that some of these items should have been disclosed?


View attachment 92950

View attachment 92951






I really despise those who have ripped us off. My hope is that AVZ can still sell the asset in the near term.


Edit - the more I go over the list of items the better I feel about it. Dathomir's attempts to terminate the agreements, not accept payment etc...well ICC upheld AVZ's position, so tough shit. The Lubumbashi court did not have jurisdiction. I suppose the thing that would really solidify this attempt as being spurious is if AVZ had concrete evidence of corruption here, but that might be hard to obtain. I suppose the verdict being totally at odds with the ICC goes some way to showing this. I do agree with Item l, referring to there being significant risk about further performance, however I suppose this depends on the definition of performance. If DRC do not uphold their own rule of law or perform where required by law it is not really the fault of AVZ.

Thanks for the detailed explanation. And I am pretty sure the board had legal opinions each time before making the decision what needs to be published.

 

[Flight996]

Only issue is ASIC don’t give 2 fucks about ICC and arbitration law. They’re going the directors for non disclosure, to which I guess the directors will argue it’s immaterial as usual. Hard one.

Annoyingly, every chance ASIC has used somewhat confidential info from the ICC tribunal to compile this.

It’s impossible to know whose pulling what strings anymore.

Re: Annoyingly, every chance ASIC has used somewhat confidential info from the ICC tribunal to compile this.

I tend to agree on this important point.

In order to prepare its briefs for both ICC and ICSID, and establish a pattern of behavior by the DRC and Cong Ma, management would have compiled detailed dossiers and timelines of bureaucratic inertia, dirty tricks and corruption commencing well before 2021.

It is these detailed timelines along with the official minutes (and side notes) of board meetings that ASIC will focus on, and which may (or may not) be problematic for Nigel and Graeme.

Cheers
F

 

[Carlos Danger]

Carlos, I agree that AVZ completed the required steps and the SPA's were completed as confirmed by the ICC. However, I think the issue is that Cong was using the corrupt DRC legal system to try to reverse the agreements and whether this attempt/dispute needed to be disclosed.

ASIC are stating that AVZ had not completed the acquisition:


View attachment 92949



and there was a decision that went against us in the High Court of Lubumbashi:


View attachment 92948




If court rulings/decisions to take a portion of our asset off us and destroy share certificates are made in the DRC, is this not material? If a court ruling goes against us in the DRC where our only asset is, then I think AVZ may have a very hard time arguing that it is just media speculation/spurious/immaterial.

I know that:
- the High Court of Lubumbashi should not have jurisdiction
- Cong likely bribed the judge
- they don't follow the rule of law
- AVZ did everything required to complete the SPA's

but these thieves attempting to illegally take the asset (or a portion of it) off us and disputing transactions, obtaining rulings in the corrupt DRC legal system, destroying share certificates etc, are still material pieces of information. Would you not think that ASIC would have a case that these dispute/s were material and should have been disclosed?

The whole plan to steal the asset off us by the DRC Government/CAMI/Cominiere/Zijin/Cong is completely illegal. However, the result is that AVZ simply cannot mine Manono. The result is that AVZ loses billions $$$. So regardless of whether it is illegal or not, whether this is how contracts should work or not, it is and was very, very material.

In your view, is the detail that will save us, the fact that the joint venture agreement required disputes to go to ICC to be resolved and therefore the High Court of Lubumbashi never had jurisdiction? Can it therefore simply be ignored and not disclosed?

I am going back and forth with this a bit.

- AVZ completed the required steps
- DRC court did not have jurisdiction
- ICC upheld AVZ's position

However, there are still a lot of things in here that I think shareholders would have certainly liked to know at the time. Do you think ASIC have any case that some of these items should have been disclosed?


View attachment 92950

View attachment 92951






I really despise those who have ripped us off. My hope is that AVZ can still sell the asset in the near term.


Edit - the more I go over the list of items the better I feel about it. Dathomir's attempts to terminate the agreements, not accept payment etc...well ICC upheld AVZ's position, so tough shit. The Lubumbashi court did not have jurisdiction. I suppose the thing that would really solidify this attempt as being spurious is if AVZ had concrete evidence of corruption here, but that might be hard to obtain. I suppose the verdict being totally at odds with the ICC goes some way to showing this. I do agree with Item l, referring to there being significant risk about further performance, however I suppose this depends on the definition of performance. If DRC do not uphold their own rule of law or perform where required by law it is not really the fault of AVZ.

The ICC is the appropriate venue for arbitration under the SPA's

When AVZ commenced arbitration at the ICC it released an announcement to market

The ICC has confirmed that completion occurred in August 2021 for the first 10% (other 5% is imminent) and that AVZ have owned the shares in Dathcom since then

ASIC are trying to argue that the dispute raised by Cong caused a 'significant risk to the performance or completion' of the SPA's but that ignores what any reasonable person whether director or not would consider completion and therefore performance attached the latter of which will be tested by the DRC Supreme Court

I've always said that AVZ management should have released updates about this dispute but unless they lose in the correct arbitration channels then they didn't have to and the garbage interpretation of performance or completion in ASICs statement of claim has not changed that view imo

 

[Ancient]

Some interesting news this morning. MinRes and POSCO Holdings to form lithium partnership. The below is from Chat GPT pro and is likely to contain errors. Also the general concept of comparing these projects is apples to oranges but an interesting experiment anyway.

I wanted to compare the projects on a tonnage basis.

The US$765 m POSCO payment is for 30% of a new JV that will hold MinRes’s existing 50% interests in both Wodgina and Mt Marion. MinRes states this values its 50% interest at ~A$3.9 b (≈ US$2.5 b at 0.65 FX), implying a 100% underlying value of ~US$5.1 b for Wodgina + Mt Marion together.

A) Per‑tonne of contained Li₂O​

• $/t Li₂O for Wodgina + Mt Marion = US$5.1 b / 3.42 Mt ≈ US$1,491/t Li₂O.
• Apply to Manono’s 13.52 Mt Li₂O ⇒ 13.52 Mt × US$1,491/t ≈ US$20.2 b (≈ A$31.0 b at 0.65).

 

[wombat74]

From pow4ade on the Crapper : Relax, it will take forever for ASIC to deliver its findings, guilty or not

 

[Xerof]

Ah, thats where he’s been - crawling up ASIC’s arse with all his matrix documentation

Annnnd, after 3 months silence, Shane starts posting on X late yesterday. Well, what a fucking surprise

 

[Remark]

Someone needs to bitch slap Lenny FFS

 

[JNRB]

Some interesting news this morning. MinRes and POSCO Holdings to form lithium partnership. The below is from Chat GPT pro and is likely to contain errors. Also the general concept of comparing these projects is apples to oranges but an interesting experiment anyway.

I wanted to compare the projects on a tonnage basis.

The US$765 m POSCO payment is for 30% of a new JV that will hold MinRes’s existing 50% interests in both Wodgina and Mt Marion. MinRes states this values its 50% interest at ~A$3.9 b (≈ US$2.5 b at 0.65 FX), implying a 100% underlying value of ~US$5.1 b for Wodgina + Mt Marion together.

A) Per‑tonne of contained Li₂O​

• $/t Li₂O for Wodgina + Mt Marion = US$5.1 b / 3.42 Mt ≈ US$1,491/t Li₂O.
• Apply to Manono’s 13.52 Mt Li₂O ⇒ 13.52 Mt × US$1,491/t ≈ US$20.2 b (≈ A$31.0 b at 0.65).

At that price Koko would still be getting a nice discount.
(Thanks again Mute for this table)

 

[cruiser51]

Someone needs to bitch slap Lenny FFS

If he shows up at the AGM I'll give him a vulgar folly with a smile on my face.

However it is good to see team troll going in overdrive, it normally means their bum cheeks are hard pressed together due to excess anxiety.

 

[Sangster]

Some interesting news this morning. MinRes and POSCO Holdings to form lithium partnership. The below is from Chat GPT pro and is likely to contain errors. Also the general concept of comparing these projects is apples to oranges but an interesting experiment anyway.

I wanted to compare the projects on a tonnage basis.

The US$765 m POSCO payment is for 30% of a new JV that will hold MinRes’s existing 50% interests in both Wodgina and Mt Marion. MinRes states this values its 50% interest at ~A$3.9 b (≈ US$2.5 b at 0.65 FX), implying a 100% underlying value of ~US$5.1 b for Wodgina + Mt Marion together.

A) Per‑tonne of contained Li₂O​

• $/t Li₂O for Wodgina + Mt Marion = US$5.1 b / 3.42 Mt ≈ US$1,491/t Li₂O.
• Apply to Manono’s 13.52 Mt Li₂O ⇒ 13.52 Mt × US$1,491/t ≈ US$20.2 b (≈ A$31.0 b at 0.65).

Those numbers are nice but you also need to factor in how much we can dig up and sell between periodically ceding a percentage of the project back to the DRC government. I forget the details here but I think it's something like 5% of the project each time our exploitation permit is renewed.

Carlos is pretty sharp and has previously posted the details. Most others including me missed it in napkin valuations, but it's almost certainly factored in to our damages claim and part of the reason our claim is lower than that.

 

[j.l]

And in other good news, Felix is doing Felix things again...

 

[Flight996]

As a follow-up to J.l's post, the signing of the peace deal between the DRC and Rwanda has been rescheduled to 21 Nov 2025.

Washington explains this postponement as being due to US President Donald Trump's busy schedule, but all know it's due to the DRC's failure to bring the FDLR rebels to heel, and the reluctance of M23 rebels to leave their captured territory. Different day, but same shit.

DRC/Rwanda • New date for signing of peace agreement

Reprogrammed several times, the ceremony may now be held on 21 November at the White House. Washington explains this postponement as being due to US President Donald Trump's busy schedule.

www.africaintelligence.com

Cheers
F

 

[JasonM]

dumb fuckers!

 

[Skar]

DRC's failure to bring the FDLR rebels to heel, and the reluctance of M23 rebels to leave their captured territory.

Washington have taken far too light a hand with this diplomacy. Wish they woulda come in brandishing the stick, just big d(& flop it on the table and bring the misbehaving leaders to heel. This is what you have agreed to, this is the deadline, military support for the opposition of either side that breaks their word with Washington.

Essentially what Trump did to the Taliban in his first term, show them a picture of their house, we want those minerals boys, we will help you develop as a nation and elevate your people from poverty but require good relations between you. The good ole fashion American export, freedom.

 

[Uglybob]

If he shows up at the AGM I'll give him a vulgar folly with a smile on my face.

However it is good to see team troll going in overdrive, it normally means their bum cheeks are hard pressed together due to excess anxiety.

No, be nice and give him a good, firm hand shake.

 

[Ancient]

Those numbers are nice but you also need to factor in how much we can dig up and sell between periodically ceding a percentage of the project back to the DRC government. I forget the details here but I think it's something like 5% of the project each time our exploitation permit is renewed.

Carlos is pretty sharp and has previously posted the details. Most others including me missed it in napkin valuations, but it's almost certainly factored in to our damages claim and part of the reason our claim is lower than that.

Yea I mean the per tonnage valuation is arbitrary really. Its more of just a muck around exercise with interesting results.

The reality is the tonnage comparison is actually built in to an overall comparative transaction analysis which is then only a small part of the overall valuation tools that a M&A team would use. Amongst financial tools, strategic considerations (buyers perspective), risk discounts, and about 50 other things.

What its more indicative of, and why i find it interesting, is 1. Timing, m&a at turning point of market, companies that know there shit spending money 2. Market heating up, causing pay now or pay more later mentality 3. Every above average transaction that goes through continues to pull the 'normal' m&a valuations up.

So I see it as good for us. Not like its a 'this completely changes the game', more like an extra little thing in the back of their minds when negotiating. Certainly not bad.

 

[Strongman]

Washington have taken far too light a hand with this diplomacy. Wish they woulda come in brandishing the stick, just big d(& flop it on the table and bring the misbehaving leaders to heel. This is what you have agreed to, this is the deadline, military support for the opposition of either side that breaks their word with Washington.

Essentially what Trump did to the Taliban in his first term, show them a picture of their house, we want those minerals boys, we will help you develop as a nation and elevate your people from poverty but require good relations between you. The good ole fashion American export, freedom.

View attachment 92978

Need to get this guy in there to sort some shit out. As he says corrupt and incompetent the lot of them

https://x.com/AfricaFactsZone/status/1756222608306020706?s=20

 

[j.l]

Washington have taken far too light a hand with this diplomacy. Wish they woulda come in brandishing the stick, just big d(& flop it on the table and bring the misbehaving leaders to heel. This is what you have agreed to, this is the deadline, military support for the opposition of either side that breaks their word with Washington.

Essentially what Trump did to the Taliban in his first term, show them a picture of their house, we want those minerals boys, we will help you develop as a nation and elevate your people from poverty but require good relations between you. The good ole fashion American export, freedom.

View attachment 92978

Agreed. I remember hearing an anecdote from the early discussions where Rwanda started playing silly buggers and got up to walk out. Boulos (I think ?) gave them the smackdown and they fell in line...

 

[Sangster]

Yea I mean the per tonnage valuation is arbitrary really. Its more of just a muck around exercise with interesting results.

It's certainly a lot of fun and always nice to quantity the value of our deposit. I just think it's important for readers to have realistic expectations. No one should be expecting anything over $10B from a western buyer or $12B from Zijin. Fuck Zijin.