BRICK
Top 20
Maybe Felix took.... Andrew Forrest
Im sure a lot of wanking can lead to excessive winking?
Last edited:
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
John25
Regular
Found another error …
“For further information contact Ben”
He must be back in Perth & has internet coverage
but didnt state that he will reply though 
I was an abysmal failure in biology, but by all means I will not stop you from reporting on your experiences.Maybe Felix took
Im sure a lot of wanking can lead to excessive winking?
Misfits
Regular
He is still in the DRC
Azzler
Top 20
Holy crap I was actually right about a speculation for once!
Isn't that nice
Oh and thank god that wasn't true.
Also to Hoots on the crapper, WRONG BIATCH!
T
The thought of him AND Felix actually meeting IN MANONO - if it's true - does give me some optimism
That's great!
The thought of him AND Felix actually meeting IN MANONO - if it's true - does give me some optimism
Pleased to see it was just a typo, though that's typically sloppy of our comms people. That should have been caught. Anyway, that's one bit of easement.
Two points of interest I've picked out of this announcement. The first is how Zijin/JC's case and effort to win their way into the project is described - which basically puts to bed for me that the company have any intention for now of entering into a settlement with Zijin.
The second is a point of confusion regarding the bifurcated Zijin ICC arbitration
Here it states that if the first challenge wins out, then Jin Cheng don't have the right to institute arbitration at the ICC against us due to non involvement in the JVA. It however says that this wouldn't determine whether the sale by Cominiere was effective which must be determined in another separate proceeding. Wouldn't success in the first challenge remove the ability for a second ICC hearing to be held on whether the sale of shares was actually legit?
Does this mean a different kind of proceedings would be required? Where would they happen, DRC courts? That's not ideal for us, we can't win in that corrupt environment. With the dathomir case we ignored DRC court rulings as lacking jurisdiction but if its determined that JC aren't in the JVA, where would jurisdiction be? Would this require us starting a separate ICC case against Cominiere to determine the legitimacy of the transfer, given they ARE in the JVA?
Colour me confused. Anyone got any thoughts? I'm probably over complicating this in my head but to me it doesn't add up as explained in this announcement.
Two points of interest I've picked out of this announcement. The first is how Zijin/JC's case and effort to win their way into the project is described - which basically puts to bed for me that the company have any intention for now of entering into a settlement with Zijin.
The second is a point of confusion regarding the bifurcated Zijin ICC arbitration
Here it states that if the first challenge wins out, then Jin Cheng don't have the right to institute arbitration at the ICC against us due to non involvement in the JVA. It however says that this wouldn't determine whether the sale by Cominiere was effective which must be determined in another separate proceeding. Wouldn't success in the first challenge remove the ability for a second ICC hearing to be held on whether the sale of shares was actually legit?
Does this mean a different kind of proceedings would be required? Where would they happen, DRC courts? That's not ideal for us, we can't win in that corrupt environment. With the dathomir case we ignored DRC court rulings as lacking jurisdiction but if its determined that JC aren't in the JVA, where would jurisdiction be? Would this require us starting a separate ICC case against Cominiere to determine the legitimacy of the transfer, given they ARE in the JVA?
Colour me confused. Anyone got any thoughts? I'm probably over complicating this in my head but to me it doesn't add up as explained in this announcement.
Is it the commissionaire who is precu the 7M $?
Yes $5 million of the 33 million.
A relative of adviser Jean-Claude Bukasa at the heart of the controversial sale of Cominière assets
Recently pinned down by the General Inspectorate of Finance, the sale to a Chinese company of shares held by the public mining company Cominière was made possible thanks to the company Focus Plaidoirie belonging to Lisette Kabanga Tshibwabwa, a member of Félix Tshisekedi's cabinet.
Anybody, who thought life as a president is easy, better think twice.
Could it be:
Step 1, sort out Zijin.
Followed by step 2, sort out Cominière, as they illegally sold 15% and AVZ has a financial losses claim against Cominière.
How Cominière wishes to solve that problem is up to CKK, he is a star in reading contracts and working with calculators.
Fuk Hoots, fukkin wanker really showed his colours.Holy crap I was actually right about a speculation for once!
Isn't that nice
Oh and thank god that wasn't true.
Also to Hoots on the crapper, WRONG BIATCH!
I have stress every day
And I thought you were simply a winker.
and a thinker or was that drinker
Flexi
Regular
Just in case Felix is reading TSE.
Flexi 001
https://twitter.com/Allmetpt
·
Mr President. Your people need a strong leader who can improve their living standards. DRC has lost close to $100 million dollars by delaying the Monono mining licence. Imagine how many Schools , Hospitals, Roads and Clean drinking water could have been delivered. Must act NOW
Flexi 001
https://twitter.com/Allmetpt
·
Mr President. Your people need a strong leader who can improve their living standards. DRC has lost close to $100 million dollars by delaying the Monono mining licence. Imagine how many Schools , Hospitals, Roads and Clean drinking water could have been delivered. Must act NOW
9cardomaha
Regular
Think this one goes back to the RCE7102 documents I posted last week, which was AVZ's in-country (DRC) case stating Cominiere's 15% transfer was illegal, which has now been withdrawn.
Zijin's case at the ICC is some bullshit about AVZ's abuse (AFR quoted ZJ lawyer saying as much), and AVZ are about to have the case dismissed because Zijin has no right to take AVZ to ICC according to JVA.
I believe the dismissal at ICC would be precedence for AVZ to say that ICC doesn't even recognize ZJ as a shareholder, and then work from there. But I'm not a lawyer so not sure how these cross jurisdiction shenanigans work.
In the DRC, it doesn't seem like AVZ need to even engage with ZJ. They could probably just take it to a higher court to confirm the sale was illegal, ultimatley bypassing the need to engage ZJ. (Not sure if they'd have to restart a case against Cominiere, or if there's a way they can just void the sale from a top down approach).
The above also largely aligns with the idea of 'playing nice' with other shareholders, namely Cominiere. And since ICC ruled that ZJ is not a shareholder, we can tell them to fuck off.
Remark
Top 20
Jeez, they're busy in the AVZ office today! Another announcement - they're spoiling us....
Some decent grades there.
Some decent grades there.
Similar threads
