9cardomaha
Regular
Anchoring the 12 for ZJ and with that number they can still get a healthy dose of fuck off and die from me too.
Last edited:
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
It is Dathcom which needs to hold 51%. Look at Komoa if you want an example where the end shareholders all hold less than 50%.
This just seems to be a never ending stalemate where Adele Kayinda, Antoinette and Cominiere all cooperate with Zijin. I am trying to think what will change.
My hopes are:
- Vital Kamerhe, maybe when he gets some free time away from stuntin' on everyone in the Brabus G wagon he can change things. He is a new person in this situation at least, but his vehicle choice and prior history makes me skeptical of his motivations.
- Martin Fayulu, maybe he gets elected and is less under the control of China. Although when I talk to people in the DRC they say the election process is generally controlled by whoever is currently in power.
What are other people's thoughts on the potential change that will occur that will allow things to progress?
When we first went into suspension I think people were hoping that AVZ were negotiating in the background and then one day we just get notification that there she is boys, the mining licence, we sorted it out! Hopefully there is still a chance of this and the negotiations are progressing.
Last edited:
Mr Inappropriate
Regular
Correct
Incorrect - ie Kamoa - a joint venture between Ivanhoe Mines (39.6%), Zijin Mining Group (39.6%), Crystal River Global Limited (0.8%) and the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (20%)
obe wan
Regular
That wasn't the case at time of mining application ; percentages can shift there afterwards. I'm pretty sure we had this conversation before, Komoa mine was held under Komoa Holdings a subsidiary of Ivanhoe ; Komoa Holdings ‘ivanhoe’ held ‘80%’ of the Komoa project; Ivanhoe then sold 49.5% of Komoa Holdings off to Zijin for 400/500m.....the percentages after mining application have shifted after a few dealings to what they are now.
Obe, keen to here your take on today's announcement if you care to share(and haven't already)
BenGriffo
Regular
Ivanhoe was definitely a majority holder at some stage. Not sure if before/after the ML was issued. It was certainly split before it hit production though when they sold half their stake to our mates that start with Z. DRC Govt picked up more after that. And of course a snack company gets a little 0.8% for their troubles.
---
Summary of DRC Mining Code below (not the most interesting read, prolly 10 minutes of your life you will never get back
- fyi no mention of the 51% majority required in here unless I'm blind. I have heard the 51% quite a few times from posters and I thought someone posted a reference link or doc with it showing it was in the mining code but can't find it now 
Happy to be corrected if someone can point it out. Definitely I can see why AVZI wants to keep it's majority stake in Dathcom though, slips below and it's goodbye control, same as any JV.---
Spotlight: Mining law in Democratic Republic of the Congo
Mining represents a critical sector for the development of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). According to the World Bank, the mining sector…
Mining application/licence = Dathcom. Not AVZ.
You seem to be making a habit of getting the two confused.
obe wan
Regular
Ye dathom ; avz @ =>51% of dathcom . Mining application dathcom - jv partners of dathcom AVZ, cominiere etc, needs a majority controlling holding at application stage ; the Ivanhoe held >51% on application through the holding company. The percentages you keep going on about in Komoa are at mining stage ; they can hold what ever percentage arrangement the jv chooses to configure at mining stage
Mr Inappropriate
Regular
Nope - it's in the 2018 mining code. 51% minimum.
The applicant, Dathcom, does have 51% as required. If you don't believe me then all good.
I am more interested in people's thoughts as to what can potentially change in DRC for them to finally issue the licence.
Vital Kamerhe?
Martin Fayulu?
Do people think negotiations will be ongoing in the background? Seemed like AVZ could not get meetings and were no longer in the loop. I hope we are not left waiting for 2-3 years while things play out at the ICC.
Winenut
Go AVZ!
It's Dathcom...it's 51%....that's the mining code...... that's what AVZ needs....minimum for the ML
It's also what AVZ has "legally" acquired.....in fact 51% is less than what AVZ has "legally" acquired
The other cunts have "supposedly" acquired a percentage in Dathcom but bottom fucking line NONE of those "alleged" acquisitions are "legal"
Fukkem
Bring on the ICC
BRICK
Top 20
obe wan
Regular
Hi Nbaz, the company id imagine is totally fine with it ; disclosing information was benefiting the distractions more than it was our negotiating. Tommy FT is probably deserves a bit of a thank you too! He seemed to have been able to dig some pretty confidential legal docs etc which showed that distractors were digging. ASX were apparently were getting all sorts of requests for information / suggesting ‘sesrch here’, ‘look at this’ in an attempt to try and force them to make AVZ open up and trade again.
Being able to tint those windows of the negotiations rooms, as they felt that they comply with 3.1 / disclosure seemed to put them on the backfoot every now and again, after they had thought they had taken a few steps forward...personally I'm happy with the move.
ASX also seemed happy enough with their responses to the questions and put them into actually suspension using the answer to question 9 where AVZ stated that they couldn't conform to 3.1 as it was effectively causing issues, basically gave AVZ what they needed. Omni bridgeway if they had anyone on board would have preferred if as had of batted back some of those responses...but that didn't seem to happen and AVZ can be somewhat relieved that their announcements aren't twisted etc by distractors and repeated elsewhere to other parties with apparent triple meanings
Thanks for your insights. It's something I've never gone though as a shareholder and dare say not many have, so it was a bit daunting seeing the announcement drop this morning.
Hopefully it means AVZ can now get everything sorted safely and not have to worry about everything getting out before it's all confirmed.
Appreciate your words.
obe wan
Regular
“The applicant, Dathcom, does have 51% as required. If you don't believe me then all good.”
Ye but thats the jv ; need to have a , majority holder within the jv which in this case is AVZ inside dathcom....one of the tasks is that majority holders is basically the one that prepares the applications as opposed to multiple non controlling administrators within the jv for obvious reasons
Sammy_da_Smile
Regular
We have come so far to lose all hope now. We are so close with the end in sight. Hang in there everyone.
Sons of Nigel!
Of AVZ!
My brothers my sisters!
I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me.
A day may come when the courage of AVZ investors fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day.
An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the investment of AVZ comes crashing down, but it is not this day!
This day we fight!
By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Investors of the AVZ!
Sons of Nigel!
Of AVZ!
My brothers my sisters!
I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me.
A day may come when the courage of AVZ investors fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day.
An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the investment of AVZ comes crashing down, but it is not this day!
This day we fight!
By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Investors of the AVZ!
ASX suspends AVZ for non-compliance with listing rules
The lithium explorer that reached a near $4.6 billion valuation told the ASX it didn’t disclose ownership disputes as they were immaterial or not legally valid.
Similar threads
