AVZ Discussion 2022

[Peterg]

Good news. Now how long before we see some sort of communication from the DRC Government?
Surly this news will require action of some sort.
Looking forward from the response from someone in the mix.

 

[Doc]

We really that MMCS verdict. So much for open and shut case.

 

[John25]

Happy 1st Anniversary SH’s we’re still in our honeymoon stage

 

[Xerof]

Are the Board and Management of @cominiereSA aware that Reuters has published a report from a Chinese agency accusing Zijin of attempting bribery in China to cover up his violations of laws there?

As far as I can see, this was from 2010.

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUKTOE67R00B

Never-the-less, displays their character

Kunts

Kunt

 

[Xerof]

https://actualite.cd/2023/05/08/tan...ee-la-tete-de-la-province-cause-notamment-des

The Governor of Tanganyika, Julie Ngungwa, was removed from office on Monday, May 8, 2023 by provincial deputies. Out of 25 elected officials, 14 voted for her disqualification following a plenary convened in Kalemie by the office of the Provincial Assembly.

Initially, an oral question with debate introduced by provincial deputy Kakudji Wama to understand the outline of the management of the province of Tanganyika, the governor has not appeared in the Assembly since April 28. The elected representative of Tanganyika turned the oral question with debate into a motion of no confidence against Governor Julie Ngungwa.

He is accused of the mismanagement of the province of Tanganyika, the poor procurement of over-the-counter public contracts, the lack of leadership and clear vision for the development of the province.

This disqualification comes after the reshuffle of his government team. This reshuffle caused several discontent, especially the exclusion of several ministers close to the Chief of Staff of the Head of State and members of the dynamic Guylain Nyembo (DGN) Kalemie.

Since the beginning of this legislature, this is the second time that provincial deputies have dismissed governors. Before her, it was Zoé Kabila, brother of the former President of the Republic, Joseph Kabila, who had been deposed with the advent of the sacred union of the nation.

Recall, Zoe Kabila was Josephs sister, according to TommyKunt

 

[Carlos Danger]

Actually, Tom got it wrong. Tom doubled up on Dathomir %— what he failed to register is how AVZ gets to 75% (with Dathomir 15%) in order to sell 24% to CATH, leaving 51%, by Tom only seeing the remaining post-CATH 51% he then says AVZ could lose 15% on ownership case leaving 36%. Since Cominiere never sold to AVZ, AVZ can’t lose it to drop to 36%

The CATH Energy Technologies deal was flagged as part of a broader agreement announced on May 4 under which the DRC government awarded the mining licence for the Manono project to the legal entity majority-owned by AVZ.​

​

If AVZ loses its legal battle to assert ownership of a 15 per cent stake, its holding in the Manono project could fall to 36 per cent,​

What Tom should have said, could be for example, to get desired funding from CATH and, mining license, AVZ may drop to 36% to achieve it.

The implication should then be, why did MoM issue decree to Dathcom under AVZ control when it stands to be a minority partner in the JV? lol

I don’t blame anyone for not catching that Tom doozy

You're confusing two different equations

AVZ getting to 36% would mean we lose the 'disputed' 15% from Dathomir which would take us from 75% to 60%. Then we would need to be stupid enough to sell 24% to CATH taking us down to 36%. This scenario is dependent on us not getting the 15% from Cominiere but it does get the percentages that are in 'dispute' correct.

75 - 15 - 24 = 36

What has crept into the AFR's 'reporting' is the idea that both the Dathomir and Cominiere 'disputes' are a part of the 75% that AVZ legally own. Which if AVZ lost both of them would mean we would lose control even without selling to CATH because we would drop to 45%. Then potentially drop to 21% by selling the 24% to CATH.

75 - 30 - 24 = 21

 

[Carlos Danger]

AVZ never announced that if so.
Nor has any documentation emerged on it afaik.

Could it be Cominiere doesn’t have rights because Dathcom changed its company structure? There was an email leak by Franck Fwamba on Johnston emails to Cominiere employee reninding of company structure differences. Cominiere never seemed willing to accept or understand the consequences of Yibin’s request for AVZ to have control over the JV. They just want their snacks

It's possible that there is a clause in Article 10 of Dathcom's Articles of Association (which I don't have a copy of) that prevents Cominiere having their pre-emption rights. Also possible that Cominiere have signed a waiver that hasn't been made public. But according to Article 9 of the Dathcom JVA the pre-emption right is held by all current shareholders of Dathcom for transfers to a third party.

 

[CHB]

For fucks sake stop looking into cominiere preemption rights.

I'm sure the bod did the right thing and if they didn't DONT WANT THE WORLD TO FUCKING KNOW.

The retards out there have enough ammo to take pot shots at us already without U twats providing more ammo.

 

[Carlos Danger]

For fucks sake stop looking into cominiere preemption rights.

I'm sure the bod did the right thing and if they didn't DONT WANT THE WORLD TO FUCKING KNOW.

The retards out there have enough ammo to take pot shots at us already without U twats providing more ammo.

Yeah I'm sure the ICC wouldn't be able to figure it out if I didn't post about about it on TSE lmfao

 

[Flexi]

 

[CHB]

Yeah I'm sure the ICC wouldn't be able to figure it out if I didn't post about about it on TSE lmfao

ICC can do their thing. That cant come fast enough.

It's all the other bullshit/trolls on social media that pops up.

 

[Carlos Danger]

ICC can do their thing. That cant come fast enough.

It's all the other bullshit/trolls on social media that pops up.

The only thing that I care about is the truth

 

[John Reed]

You're confusing two different equations

AVZ getting to 36% would mean we lose the 'disputed' 15% from Dathomir which would take us from 75% to 60%. Then we would need to be stupid enough to sell 24% to CATH taking us down to 36%. This scenario is dependent on us not getting the 15% from Cominiere but it does get the percentages that are in 'dispute' correct.

75 - 15 - 24 = 36

What has crept into the AFR's 'reporting' is the idea that both the Dathomir and Cominiere 'disputes' are a part of the 75% that AVZ legally own. Which if AVZ lost both of them would mean we would lose control even without selling to CATH because we would drop to 45%. Then potentially drop to 21% by selling the 24% to CATH.

75 - 30 - 24 = 21

What your saying makes more sense if Tom computed as such but I think you’re not reading the sequence of Tom’s ‘logic’ to his audience

You would need to read as a continual flow of deductions, one after the other as he presents it:

His assumption is the CATH deal for 24% is part of a broader agreement for the mining license and sealed. So he takes as given that AVZ is at 51% and from there it’s a slippery slope to the booby trap if AVZ lose 15

Where Sir Les seems to err was not being clear on Tom’s original Dathomir confusion with the latest confusion by AFR being 15 from Cominiere and 15 from Dathomir contested in 75

Tom’s May 20, year 2022 logic is this:
AVZ 75 ; +15 Dathomir
AVZ 51 ; -24 CATH
AVZ 36 ; -15 Dathomir

He doesn’t start from 60, he starts from 75

If he started from 60, he might say 36 after CATH and question if CATH deal doesn’t go ahead or not because of Dathomir 15 fight, but he already assumes CATH goes ahead (with AVZ @ 75% to 51%) , and AVZ fate is sealed headed to 36.

So what he does is following Boatman, is compose the events in a way that says AVZ is falling into a fatal trap.

Also, Sir Les point (twitter) on missing pages in Zijin contract means Tom couldn’t talk about AVZ 60% if Cominiere see AVZ with 65%. There’s no 15% fight with Dathomir if Zijin contract is looked at with 2 & 3 not missing.

AVZ in that scenario with 65, means 41 after CATH takes 24%

Boatman would have documents in their appendix in contradiction of each other. Could Tom possibly work with those incoherences?

By continually citing Boatman, Tom and AFR distance themselves from authorship of equity and trap claims. However that doesn’t mean they can ignore missing pages 2 & 3. They have to have seen that. It’s part of being a professional

 

[Azzler]

I don't think anyone yet has commented on the ICC ruling about Comminiere paying for 90% of AVZ's legal fees, apparently $188k.
I'd love to see the documentation stating the reasoning for this.

I mean it seems positive for our case.
It would have to be likely that the arbitrator sees an open and shut case in favor of AVZ for them to make that ruling right?

However I'm unschooled in how these matters are delt with and just guessing.

 

[Carlos Danger]

What your saying makes more sense if Tom computed as such but I think you’re not reading the sequence of Tom’s ‘logic’ to his audience

You would need to read as a continual flow of deductions, one after the other as he presents it:

His assumption is the CATH deal for 24% is part of a broader agreement for the mining license and sealed. So he takes as given that AVZ is at 51% and from there it’s a slippery slope to the booby trap if AVZ lose 15

Where Sir Les seems to err was not being clear on Tom’s original Dathomir confusion with the latest confusion by AFR being 15 from Cominiere and 15 from Dathomir contested in 75

Tom’s May 20, year 2022 logic is this:
AVZ 75 ; +15 Dathomir
AVZ 51 ; -24 CATH
AVZ 36 ; -15 Dathomir

He doesn’t start from 60, he starts from 75

If he started from 60, he might say 36 after CATH and question if CATH deal doesn’t go ahead or not because of Dathomir 15 fight, but he already assumes CATH goes ahead (with AVZ @ 75% to 51%) , and AVZ fate is sealed headed to 36.

So what he does is following Boatman, is compose the events in a way that says AVZ is falling into a fatal trap.

Also, Sir Les point (twitter) on missing pages in Zijin contract means Tom couldn’t talk about AVZ 60% if Cominiere see AVZ with 65%. There’s no 15% fight with Dathomir if Zijin contract is looked at with 2 & 3 not missing.

AVZ in that scenario with 65, means 41 after CATH takes 24%

Boatman would have documents in their appendix in contradiction of each other. Could Tom possibly work with those incoherences?

By continually citing Boatman, Tom and AFR distance themselves from authorship of equity and trap claims. However that doesn’t mean they can ignore missing pages 2 & 3. They have to have seen that. It’s part of being a professional

View attachment 36032

What you just said differs in no way to what I said in regards to the ownership 'disputes'

The relevant question here is did Tommy include the Cominiere 15% in AVZ's 75% in the May 20 2022 article like he recently started doing (until called out by me and then Les on Twitter that made him change it in his last article to be correct) that has now been repeated in this latest article by the new kid ?

The answer is no. Tommy correctly identified that the 15% from Cominiere is seperate to AVZ's 75% legal holding as the screenshot you provided clearly shows.

 

[John Reed]

It's possible that there is a clause in Article 10 of Dathcom's Articles of Association (which I don't have a copy of) that prevents Cominiere having their pre-emption rights. Also possible that Cominiere have signed a waiver that hasn't been made public. But according to Article 9 of the Dathcom JVA the pre-emption right is held by all current shareholders of Dathcom for transfers to a third party.

View attachment 36025
View attachment 36026
View attachment 36027
View attachment 36028

To refine, could it be that Dathcom Board meetings can only be convened by AVZ-I under new company structure Yibin wanted, therefore, no transactions can happen without AVZ-I’s cooperation?

It’s a bit muddy for me what’s happened here.

AVZ did recieve a letter from Cominiere on its intention to sell to Zijin. But AVZ point out that letter should have been sent to AVZ-I Dathcom member.

I’m just wondering if Cominiere were treated a bit too rough at this point. But as I said not sure of what steps breached in total or not or how

This letter makes it clear it’s not just a matter of pre-emption rights:but Board approval, and that means AVZ basically

 

[Strongman]

What you just said differs in no way to what I said in regards to the ownership 'disputes'

The relevant question here is did Tommy include the Cominiere 15% in AVZ's 75% in the May 20 2022 article like he recently started doing (until called out by me and then Les on Twitter that made him change it in his last article to be correct) that has now been repeated in this latest article by the new kid ?

The answer is no. Tommy correctly identified that the 15% from Cominiere is seperate to AVZ's 75% legal holding as the screenshot you provided clearly shows.

At the end of the day who really gives a shit what Tommy or the AFR publishes. There are 2 things here
a) The Cath deal forms part of the terms of the issuing of the mining licence in that it provides proof of AVZ ability to satisfy the finance side of the ML requirements. If all goes pear shaped and Dathomir/Comminiere get the 15 % back and Zin get to keep the other 15 % then we are left with 60 % . Nigel has already indicated Cath are happy with 9% ( we retain control @ 51 % ) . The finance side of equation is still viable with Cath buying the 9 % and providing the balance of the original agreed amount in the form of pre payment of off take. Of course iam just guessing there but i believe this is almost certainally how it will work. There is no way known AVZ is going less than 51 %
b) Need an answer from ICC re the Comminiere MMCS case as that 5% is critical in that it is part of the 10 % that Com must cede to DRC as part of requirement of the issue of the Mining licence

 

[Carlos Danger]

To refine, could it be that Dathcom Board meetings can only be convened by AVZ-I under new company structure Yibin wanted, therefore, no transactions can happen without AVZ-I’s cooperation?

It’s a bit muddy for me what’s happened here.

AVZ did recieve a letter from Cominiere on its intention to sell to Zijin. But AVZ point out that letter should have been sent to AVZ-I Dathcom member.

I’m just wondering if Cominiere were treated a bit too rough at this point. But as I said not sure of what steps breached in total or not or how

This letter makes it clear it’s not just a matter of pre-emption rights:but Board approval, and that means AVZ basically


View attachment 36033

View attachment 36034

View attachment 36035

The problem with the Cominiere to Zijin 15% is that AVZ indicated that they wanted to exercise the pre-emption within the 40 days but were then ignored by Cominiere when they asked what the price was. Bit hard to pay if you don't know what the amount is.

As for the AVZ to CATH 24% it would be the same process according to the JVA. Again there could be something that changes this that is not publicly available. Assuming there isn't something that overrides the JVA then AVZ would have needed to inform the other shareholders of Dathcom of their intention to sell and given them 40 days to reply.

Article 9 of the JVA is very clear that the exercise of pre-emption must be done at the same percentage and price. So to accept Cominiere would have needed to be able to come up with $240m USD plus the additional $160m USD for construction costs. No chance Cominiere have $400m USD so most likely they weren't able to exercise the pre-emption due to not having the ability to prove that they had adequate funds to complete the transaction.

 

[John Reed]

What you just said differs in no way to what I said in regards to the ownership 'disputes'

The relevant question here is did Tommy include the Cominiere 15% in AVZ's 75% in the May 20 2022 article like he recently started doing (until called out by me and then Les on Twitter that made him change it in his last article to be correct) that has now been repeated in this latest article by the new kid ?

The answer is no. Tommy correctly identified that the 15% from Cominiere is seperate to AVZ's 75% legal holding as the screenshot you provided clearly shows.

Ok, but your sequence was this, and this is not strictly not Tom’s logical deduction

“75 - 15 - 24 = 36”

Sir Les point seems to be and it seems copied from Der Geist, is that it is not logical to subtract Dathomir 15% twice as implicit starting from 75%, and then, from 51%. The assumption here being AVZ is only prepared to sell 24% to CATH with having acquired Dathomir’s 15%

So, just looking at your sequence, hidden in that CATH 24% is still another magical 15 from Dathomir.

By making these assumptions, AFR can present the fatalist story to coincide with Boatman docs and AVZ coming out of a trading halt. It looks illegal what they did as market manipulation even if some ideas are correct there’s a dispute that is likely affecting progress because the adversaries are powerful

 

[John Reed]

At the end of the day who really gives a shit what Tommy or the AFR publishes. There are 2 things here
a) The Cath deal forms part of the terms of the issuing of the mining licence in that it provides proof of AVZ ability to satisfy the finance side of the ML requirements. If all goes pear shaped and Dathomir/Comminiere get the 15 % back and Zin get to keep the other 15 % then we are left with 60 % . Nigel has already indicated Cath are happy with 9% ( we retain control @ 51 % ) . The finance side of equation is still viable with Cath buying the 9 % and providing the balance of the original agreed amount in the form of pre payment of off take. Of course iam just guessing there but i believe this is almost certainally how it will work. There is no way known AVZ is going less than 51 %
b) Need an answer from ICC re the Comminiere MMCS case as that 5% is critical in that it is part of the 10 % that Com must cede to DRC as part of requirement of the issue of the Mining licence

Well AVZ did, they cited something from ASIC legislation. Remind me, where did AVZ cite ASIC legislation