Rechnerhand
Regular
at least 2 options I guess.
> Pressure internal - liquidity
> Pressure external - potential buyer request to do so before any further step ...
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
> Pressure internal - liquidity
> Pressure external - potential buyer request to do so before any further step ...
Well if it's option 1 we r in big trouble
If its Option 2 then I hope we r not being played coz we r bending over getting ready to cop it in ass.
Hopefully it's option 3 - deals already done pending sign off of peace deal
Chancen1904
Emerged
Very thoughtful. You got no Idea so please stay calm and let more knowledgeable contribute.
I have no Idea either, that ist why i am asking
Penskefile
Regular
Same shit, different day.
yaseenmeoncebefore
Emerged
The announcement does mention funding, but those "in the know" are saying it is not to fund the litigation. There is likely a few more twists and turns to come yet.
Dijon101
Regular
As much as I want our day in court and a final award for damages, it could be problematic for selling our interests to the Americans. I'm not an expert on the subject but I do know that it's illegal for American businesses and citizens to do business with foreign entities that have been sanctioned.
Hopefully I have the correct terminology here, as stated I am not an expert.
Our case involves substantial corruption by several congolese actors. Those we sell our interests to will need to do business with these individuals. I speculate this may not be possible or will at least be more difficult if we follow through to a final hearing and an award.
Our legal team will have advised the best path forward. This step may be a way to keep the floor open to the Americans, increasing both the number of bidders and the value of (by reducing complications associated with) what we are offering to sell.
Chancen1904
Emerged
Absolutely Not. Looking for thoughts on the News.
Xerof
Flushed the Toilet
I’ll just put this up, acknowledgement to pow4ade on the crapper
IMO, this is more likely to be much nearer the truth than thinking more litigation funding is the underlying issue
With the looming peace signing ceremony in Washington with its strategic minerals tie-in, the US agenda obviously overlaps our dispute.
So I asked AI what they think is going on with US interests and our new suspension...just for fun:
AVZ pausing arbitration again suggests the US (or US-aligned parties) may again have encouraged a cooling-off period.
This time, the difference is:
“We are talking to parties who might fund a settlement with the DRC, a buyout of CATH claims, and a viable project structure.”
A multi-party, Western-aligned commercial settlement is being actively constructed behind the scenes — likely involving US diplomatic pressure, funding arrangements, and a restructure of Manono ownership. AVZ has paused arbitration to give this geopolitical process time to solidify.
IMO, this is more likely to be much nearer the truth than thinking more litigation funding is the underlying issue
With the looming peace signing ceremony in Washington with its strategic minerals tie-in, the US agenda obviously overlaps our dispute.
So I asked AI what they think is going on with US interests and our new suspension...just for fun:
The US appears to be pushing for a commercial settlement — not a court victory
AVZ’s suspension aligns with a US strategic objective:- avoid a large ICSID damages award against the DRC
- avoid a sovereign enforcement battle
- resolve disputes through deals, not legal warfare
- get major critical mineral projects moving
- reduce Chinese dominance
AVZ pausing arbitration again suggests the US (or US-aligned parties) may again have encouraged a cooling-off period.
2. AVZ signalling: “We’re open to any Western-backed proposal — not just KoBold”
By lifting exclusivity:- AVZ invites multiple bidders
- The US achieves a competitive environment
- CATH (Chinese) is explicitly named as a stakeholder to be managed
- AVZ positions itself as willing to work with the most credible Western counterparty
3. The second suspension strongly suggests that “something is close”
A pause until February 2026 is:- long enough for a structured deal to form
- short enough to signal urgency
- consistent with a government-to-government process
This time, the difference is:
The push may be coming from outside the DRC.
Specifically from:- US financial agencies
- KoBold’s backers
- MSP-aligned institutions
- Parties seeking to fund a settlement structure
“We are talking to parties who might fund a settlement with the DRC, a buyout of CATH claims, and a viable project structure.”
4. The failure of KoBold’s proposal is telling
The language is diplomatic but pointed:- KoBold has not made an acceptable proposal.
- AVZ is moving on and talking to others.
- The US likely expected KoBold to step up; KoBold hasn’t.
5. AVZ is preserving maximum leverage (litigation) while signalling willingness to settle (commercially)
This dual-track strategy is exactly what:- ICSID tribunals expect
- Western governments prefer
- Negotiating parties need
BOTTOM LINE: What This Latest Update ReallySuggests
✔ AVZ believes a serious commercial solution is now possible — likely externally driven (US-aligned).
✔ AVZ wants time to assemble a funding partner large enough to close the entire dispute — including DRC and CATH.
✔ The US is pressuring for stability in DRC mining to attract foreign investment — resolving the AVZ dispute is necessary for that.
✔ A competitive process means AVZ is not tied to KoBold and may attract a different Western counterparty.
✔ The second arbitration suspension is a sign of imminent negotiations, not weakness.
✔ If a deal is not reached by February 2026, arbitration resumes — and the DRC faces massive financial risk.
Final Outlook (Highest Probability Interpretation)
AVZ’s latest announcement suggests that:A multi-party, Western-aligned commercial settlement is being actively constructed behind the scenes — likely involving US diplomatic pressure, funding arrangements, and a restructure of Manono ownership. AVZ has paused arbitration to give this geopolitical process time to solidify.
This is the clearest signal in two years that resolution, not perpetual conflict, is now the strategic direction.
obe wan
Regular
Agreed ; read this and then re reading the announcement from last night is somewhat cleansing
Skar
Regular
At first thought I was a little thrown off by this announcement. Because it can seem like it's saying "We've suspended the court case whilst we sort out further litigation funding"... So I thought about it whilst I slept and have now decided my first impression was wrong.
The Manono project is not AVZ. AVZ is a party to the project.
What does funding really mean here? Funding is about project funding. The DRC government is party to the project and also wont be contributing to any funding. CATH are potentially an indirect party to the project according to the revised TIA, in which AVZ has the option to either self fund capital or have CATH fund it. With the later meaning CATH would loan AVZ the capital required and would be paid back through the project revenue. In the scenario where AVZ were to be funded by a loan from CATH, CATH would have rights over 100% of the offtake.
The conditions of the TIA are as follows:
I am going to have a crack at translating this:
We are currently in discussions with several parties in respects to the sale of AVZ's portion of the project. The other parties recognise the importance of diversifying critical mineral supply chains away from China. I.e., one of these parties has interests in western supply chains, i.e., OEM and/or Government interests.
The next sentence is a bit weird, is it a threat to the western parties to say this is also on the table for Chinese players? Or, are they saying we're assuming that there will be legal obligations to our cornerstone investors (CATH) and these need to be considered in a sale. i.e., the TIA completion is assumed due to expected ML assignment to AVZ from DRC government as part of settlement discussions and therefore any purchaser needs to keep these conditions in mind. Are AVZ trying to encourage pre settlement acquisition which has been theorised about before?
IMO DRC and AVZ have somewhat come to a settlement agreement assuming the offer is right from the party taking over AVZ's portion of the project. The incentives for the DRC government need to be correct... Probably $ for a portion of their project share and a significant funding commitment. The additional consideration is how the negotiation is going with CATH. They want supply, they're going to want to keep as much of that as possible. For them to step aside and let someone else come in to fund the project and take the supply, the price would have to be right or they would need to be out maneuverer through the contracts. I doubt the funding party would only be contributing capital, the acquisition will be about securing western supply, and that will be with the blessing and potential financial backing from US Gov. So many unknowns throughout this...
The summary is that this is a very positive announcement and that they're essentially saying "a resolution is fairly progressed in which we, jointly with the DRC and US Government, can put forward a proposal to candidate purchasers, these purchasers have been presented and are engaged in negations, and now it's a matter of time before the negotiations have progressed to execution".
I easily could be interpreting this all completely wrong.. there's not a great deal to go off tbh
The Manono project is not AVZ. AVZ is a party to the project.
What does funding really mean here? Funding is about project funding. The DRC government is party to the project and also wont be contributing to any funding. CATH are potentially an indirect party to the project according to the revised TIA, in which AVZ has the option to either self fund capital or have CATH fund it. With the later meaning CATH would loan AVZ the capital required and would be paid back through the project revenue. In the scenario where AVZ were to be funded by a loan from CATH, CATH would have rights over 100% of the offtake.
The conditions of the TIA are as follows:
- the Mining Licence being granted to Dathcom;
- the transfer of certain service entities to GLH;
- the CAPEX Funding Agreement is entered into by CATH and GLH;
- a shareholders agreement in respect of GLH is entered into between AVZ, CATH and GLH;
- a revised offtake agreement is entered into between Dathcom and CATH;
- all regulatory approvals and third-party consents required under all applicable laws (including those of the Democratic Republic of Congo and the People's Republic of China) and contractual arrangements having been obtained;
- no material adverse change having occurred.
I am going to have a crack at translating this:
We are currently in discussions with several parties in respects to the sale of AVZ's portion of the project. The other parties recognise the importance of diversifying critical mineral supply chains away from China. I.e., one of these parties has interests in western supply chains, i.e., OEM and/or Government interests.
The next sentence is a bit weird, is it a threat to the western parties to say this is also on the table for Chinese players? Or, are they saying we're assuming that there will be legal obligations to our cornerstone investors (CATH) and these need to be considered in a sale. i.e., the TIA completion is assumed due to expected ML assignment to AVZ from DRC government as part of settlement discussions and therefore any purchaser needs to keep these conditions in mind. Are AVZ trying to encourage pre settlement acquisition which has been theorised about before?
IMO DRC and AVZ have somewhat come to a settlement agreement assuming the offer is right from the party taking over AVZ's portion of the project. The incentives for the DRC government need to be correct... Probably $ for a portion of their project share and a significant funding commitment. The additional consideration is how the negotiation is going with CATH. They want supply, they're going to want to keep as much of that as possible. For them to step aside and let someone else come in to fund the project and take the supply, the price would have to be right or they would need to be out maneuverer through the contracts. I doubt the funding party would only be contributing capital, the acquisition will be about securing western supply, and that will be with the blessing and potential financial backing from US Gov. So many unknowns throughout this...
The summary is that this is a very positive announcement and that they're essentially saying "a resolution is fairly progressed in which we, jointly with the DRC and US Government, can put forward a proposal to candidate purchasers, these purchasers have been presented and are engaged in negations, and now it's a matter of time before the negotiations have progressed to execution".
I easily could be interpreting this all completely wrong.. there's not a great deal to go off tbh
Remark
Top 20
That's a great breakdown & summation of what we're up against.
It is such a complex deal that I can understand why it's taking so long for the relevant parties to agree on a settlement.
I think the sticking point will be which way we go, east or west. CATH already have a finger in the pie & the US don't want them anywhere near Manono. There has to be a middle ground.
Thanks for taking the time to post this.
It is such a complex deal that I can understand why it's taking so long for the relevant parties to agree on a settlement.
I think the sticking point will be which way we go, east or west. CATH already have a finger in the pie & the US don't want them anywhere near Manono. There has to be a middle ground.
Thanks for taking the time to post this.
BRICK
Zeebot Located
Looks like Donalds family will forever have a pipeline of hotels and projects for the foreseable future in SA
I guess $1 trillion worth of US investment is the going rate to forget the kidnapping and murder by dismemberment of an inconvenient journalist.
Sweet. Maybe they'll find our missing $20,000,000.
I think they will find a lot of peoples' missing $20,000,000
Similar threads
