AVZ Discussion 2022

[bloke383]

Depending on how Felix handles this will affect his chances of re-election . I would imagine any of his political opponents will have a field day using this situation in a political campaign against him if the DRC will be up for damages in billions as Chilla just said .

 

[DoubleA]

It's possible.

I'm done with positivity though, plenty of others for that.

Let's hope it doesn't take another 6-12 months to get some sort of outcome from this. Should have put this pressure on long time ago.

Felix has decided not to choose a side and let his corrupt government manage things. Time to act like a president and make a call.

I'd be fucking delighted if it took another 6-12 months to get an outcome. My hope is that it does not take another 6-12 YEARS!

 

[Flight996]

Just on outcome 4, reading the attached document section 54 - the national courts referred to are the national courts of the contracting state. Namely the DRC. So should the loser not play ball the decisions are to be enforced by their own courts, not those of the US - so I don't think it would be USA garnishing DRC assets abroad to ensure the payment in this case. I'm not saying the DRC wouldn't pay, because the DRC is indeed bound by this, but it's up to its own courts to enforce it if the award isn't handed over. We haven't had much love with DRC courts but this would be on a different level of magnitude, and probably harder to undermine through corruption.

Let's hope we don't get that far anyway! Reading the doc I like the conciliation part. Launching this case could be to apply pressure and get outside eyes-on, and they may be using this tactics of reputational and prospective investment damage just to get to that reconciliation process, whereby they get together with the DRC government (if they accept to take part) to see if there is a solution. DRC might tell us to fuck off after this of course and skip that stage, so its certainly an all-in gamble, but I guess we're at that point where we have little other option but press.

What a Rollercoaster this is. I don't think I can take another few years of this, as awesome a# you cats are, so reconciliation please.

In our case (AVZ takes the DRC to the ISCID in the USA), the contracting state is the USA, rather than the DRC.

So the national courts of the contracting state are US courts.

Cheers
F

 

[dollarbills]

Not to put a dampener on anything but what is the likelihood that DRC is aligning with the global shift to the BRICS system and essentially moving away from the US, EU, Australia etc?
So perhaps they are screwing AVZ and are completely ok with siding with China, Russia etc. knowing full well that the resource can be developed by China and any other resource going forward they are happy for China to develop?

I hope to god this doesn’t happen as this is a large holding for me portfolio wise but all this corruption has led me to believe it could be related to siding with China for the inevitable global shift to Chinese influence and the downfall of the US dollar.

 

[Charbella]

Depending on how Felix handles this will affect his chances of re-election . I would imagine any of his political opponents will have a field day using this situation in a political campaign against him if the DRC will be up for damages in billions as Chilla just said .

The last case against DRC state was back in 2005, which was 18 years ago. Not as good look for Felix.

NO.	YEAR OF INITIATION	SHORT CASE NAME	SUMMARY	OUTCOME OF ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS	RESPONDENT STATE	HOME STATE OF INVESTOR
1	2005	AHCA v. Congo	Investment:Outstanding invoices issued by the Government, acquired through assignment from a Congolese incorporated company in which the investor held interests. Summary:Claims arising out of an outstanding debt owed by the respondent to the company in which the investor acquired interests related to construction projects conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s under certain contracts.	Decided in favour of State	Congo, Democratic Republic of the	United States of America
2	2003	Miminco v. Congo	Investment:Ownership of local company holding diamond mining concessions. Summary:Claims arising out of the seizure of MIMINCO's diamond mine located in Diboko, confiscating all diamonds, communications equipment and administrative documents at the mine, followed by the seizure of its headquarters by the DRC Office of Illegally Acquired Properties.	Settled	Congo, Democratic Republic of the	United States of America
3	1999	Mitchell v. Democratic Republic of the Congo	Investment:Ownership of local legal consulting firm. Summary:Claims arising out of the seizure by Congolese military forces of the premises of Mr. Mitchell's legal consulting firm, in which documents qualified as compromising and other items were seized and the employees of the firm were forced to leave the premises.	Decided in favour of investor	Congo, Democratic Republic of the	United States of America
4	1993	AMT v. Democratic Republic of the Congo	Investment:Majority shareholding in company engaged in the production and sale of automotive and dry cell batteries and in the importation and resale of consumer goods and foodstuffs. Summary:Claims arising out of two alleged episodes of looting in which soldiers of the Zairian armed forces destroyed, damaged or took away certain property, finished goods, raw materials and other objects of value belonging to the local subsidiary of the investor.	Decided in favour of investor	Congo, Democratic Republic of the	United States of America

 

[Roon]

In our case (AVZ takes the DRC to the ISCID in the USA), the contracting state is the USA, rather than the DRC.

Cheers
F

Reading chaper two of the charter I respectfully disagree. ICSID offers services for the resolution of international disputes, primarily between investors and States. ICSID's proceedings generally take place at its HQ Washington, D.C.

ICSID provides arbitration and conciliation services to resolve disputes between a contracting State and foreign investors from another contracting State. We are the foreign investors, and the DRC is the contracting State.

 

[Thaz]

Reading chaper two of the charter I respectfully disagree. ICSID offers services for the resolution of international disputes, primarily between investors and States. ICSID's proceedings generally take place at its HQ Washington, D.C.

ICSID provides arbitration and conciliation services to resolve disputes between a contracting State and foreign investors from another contracting State. We are the foreign investors, and the DRC is the contracting State.

I would agree with that interpretation as well. from my layman understanding.

 

[Dazmac66]

Reading chaper two of the charter I respectfully disagree. ICSID offers services for the resolution of international disputes, primarily between investors and States. ICSID's proceedings generally take place at its HQ Washington, D.C.

ICSID provides arbitration and conciliation services to resolve disputes between a contracting State and foreign investors from another contracting State. We are the foreign investors, and the DRC is the contracting State.

So we go through this process, receive a favourable ruling and then it goes back to to the shonky courts in the DRC for execution of the verdict? Well that will fucking do me! What would be the point? Not saying you are wrong - just seems pointless.

 

[Roon]

So we go through this process, receive a favourable ruling and then it goes back to to the shonky courts in the DRC for execution of the verdict? Well that will fucking do me! What would be the point? Not saying you are wrong - just seems pointless.

Actually on more reading it does seem that there's an out. Refusal to recognise and enforce an ICSID award would result in the violation of Articles 53 and 54 by the refusing State

If these Articles are violated by the state and national court of the contracting country, thus failing to comply with the award, the other party can seek to have the pecuniary obligations recognized and enforced in the courts of any ICSID Member State as though it were a final judgment of that State’s courts (Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention).

So if the DRC don't comply sounds like we can seek to have the obligations recognized in the US after all and ensure any award is delivered. In a roundabout manner.

Apologies F and others for going in circles, just went down the rabbit hole of legalese. Can close this topic out now on a happy ending! good to know anyway.

 

[Scoota30]

Still to this day I wonder what was talked about over the phone during this conversation.

 

[Carlos Danger]

So we go through this process, receive a favourable ruling and then it goes back to to the shonky courts in the DRC for execution of the verdict? Well that will fucking do me! What would be the point? Not saying you are wrong - just seems pointless.

The point is either Felix sorts this out or the MOU is toast and the DRC will be rat fucked by China forever

 

[ozmacca]

As I've said numerous times, Felix is part of the corruption.
Felix has had 13 months to put his foot down and issue the license. The flaming president of a country can make a decision and have it actioned within 24 hours if they want, not Felix.

This is a perfect master stroke by AVZ. Right before mining week, put on the world stage to see the cluster they are embroiled in.

So IMHO.. it's actually over as we stand, we aren't getting a mining license in the current environment with the current decision makers. This next step is going to force Felix and co to individually respond and make action. Otherwise they'll be coughing up some dollars (NFI where that will come from as they are broker than broke back mountain).

Lets sit back and enjoy life my fellow investors, we just have to wait and see the outcome in the next 30-730 days.

Agree 100%. Felix is up to his eyeballs, you don’t get to that level of government in a place known for such extreme Levels of shitfuckery that we are now (after all this time) not all familiar with without greasing so many palms.

I can’t remember who pointed It out a couple months ago, Hudnut potentially, but if he wasn’t conflicted this shit would’ve been sorted long ago. That gold Rolex is a China special.

There was also another poster (sincere apologies I can’t remember who) who was talking about this being standard practise there , I.e. where chiefs get first pick of everything, and tbh it really resonates .

I just don’t see how we can possibly do business in the DRC after this, whatever rose coloured glasses I put on as a LTH. Am in naïve in thinking the only outcome is win in court and award of cash that we won’t see for many many years? (There was a recent example of that, feel free to point out my altziemers)

 

[pow4ade]

Well well well... I guess this paints a pretty clear picture of where we are at, at least in my opinion. I'd say if we saw any hope if a negotiated outcome with the DRC government, then we wouldn't go down this path. Thus I feel like our management have lost all confidence that we can have this sorted in any other way. Now I guess we won't just have unharmonious relations with the project partners, but also with the government as a whole that has the ability to progress our licence.

Some here will no doubt think otherwise, and thats fair enough, but in my view this feels like last ditch effort to pile on some pressure and international attention. There has been few recent announcements that have lowered my belief of a happy outcome anytime in the near future like this one has. Where is our relationship with the government going from here? Nowhere good, is my belief. Or in more directed terms I get the feeling we be fooked.

Sigh. Also look at the case lengths! Hope this is just a negotiation tactic.

Tend to agree. Negotiating tactic or not, you can't expect to sue a foreign government then go into a mining partnership with said govt thereafter. However it appears Nigel had no other choice. V depressing

 

[Hudnut]

Actually on more reading it does seem that there's an out. Refusal to recognise and enforce an ICSID award would result in the violation of Articles 53 and 54 by the refusing State

If these Articles are violated by the state and national court of the contracting country, thus failing to comply with the award, the other party can seek to have the pecuniary obligations recognized and enforced in the courts of any ICSID Member State as though it were a final judgment of that State’s courts (Article 54(1) of the ICSID Convention).

So if the DRC don't comply sounds like we can seek to have the obligations recognized in the US after all and ensure any award is delivered. In a roundabout manner.

Apologies F and others for going in circles, just went down the rabbit hole of legalese. Can close this topic out now on a happy ending! good to know anyway.

Which would be more time in court to prove they are not complying in a timely manner etc etc I assume.

 

[Onthefm]

Still to this day I wonder what was talked about over the phone during this conversation.

View attachment 38085

Probably went something like: I need a new watch um m um would you like a lithium mine

 

[David Krappenschitz]

I notice Jens, Deboss, qball on HC, all still with the positive “all is well” take.. ‘shorters/trolls gonna eat shit’. Well I’d like to know what they know then cause this announcement isn’t exactly uplifting.
Just blind positivity?

 

[DoubleA]

I notice Jens, Deboss, qball on HC, all still with the positive “all is well” take.. ‘shorters/trolls gonna eat shit’. Well I’d like to know what they know then cause this announcement isn’t exactly uplifting.
Just blind positivity?

If the case was initiated a few months ago we may just be getting the lodgement announcement now as there is a delay (per 9card post).

If the case was initiated months ago then potentially the case iteself is not a recent development. Could have been put in motion soon after the decree cancellation. The most recent development could be that Zijin have been removed from the project as a result of this pressure or other developments. There is a possibility at least.

 

[Flexi]

 

[Flexi]