AVZ Discussion 2022

[UpTheDuff]

From what I've heard. I'm content. Not happy, not sad.

Just want to exit and move on with my life.

 

[Chilla]

Hey Chilla,

That's interesting.

Shares held in a locally registered company in the DRC (Dathcom) by wholly owned subsidiary of AVZ Minerals Ltd (AVZ International Pty Ltd) needs AVZ Minerals (ASX) shareholders to approval to sell shares in Dathcom or assign PR rights held by Dathcom to a third party.

No to mention the extensions around PR 13559 are held by AVZ Minerals Congo Sarlu.

Not sure about that mate, can't seem to find confirmation of your assumption in the ASX listing rules, can you point me in the right direction please?

It will be a requirement in AVZ’s charter as part of being a ASX listed entity and ASIC registration. Listed entities can’t dispose of a significant asset, which in this case is AVZ’s only asset, without majority shareholder approval. They will likely need to call an EGM With explanatory statements and BoD recommendations and reasons why they seek shareholders to vote on whether or not they agree to a sale of the Dathcom shareholding or a complete sale of AVZI, which is the holding subsidiary of the DRC assets.

 

[Chilla]

Under ASX compliance it's not avz’s only asset ; tenements 4029 & 4030 would still float AVZs project boat...these two tenements are also considered assets / projects

13359 is 99.9999% of AVZ’s asset value….so it’s the major value of AVZ and will definitely require shareholders approval to divest.

 

[TDITD]

It looks like 90% of the vote is required IF it ever comes to a vote on a sale/take over ?

The Allens handbook on takeovers in Australia - Takeover bids

In general terms, a takeover bid involves a bidder making individual purchase offers at a specified bid price to all holders of securities in an ASX-listed Australian company or trust.

content.allens.com.au

• the bidder is entitled to compulsory acquisition if it obtains a relevant interest in at least 90% of the target securities (and has acquired at least 75% of the securities it offered to acquire).

Considering this is a world class deposit that will probably dictate future market prices , I don't think offering a price just surpassing share price all time highs ($1.30 / $5 billion approx) will suffice . Wouldn't there be a larger than 10% block (that can see the true value) even if you just take into consideration the holders that attended the roadshows (including the larger TSE holders) plus the BOD ? An offer of $10 billion shouldn't even be entertained when you look at the likes of LTRs $6.25 billion current market cap
As far as I'm concerned , AVZ still holds the upper hand . If any of the protagonists had a killer blow , they would have used it by now . All they have are stalling tactics . Bullying and lies won't cut it at the ICC & ICSID . AVZ should continue as they are , & not give an inch . We haven't done anything wrong . I can guarantee that the locals of Manono & people of the DRC will be a lot better off if China is not allowed to gain control

Excellent post !!!

AVZ hold the upper hand here so why on earth budge an inch. We win at ICSID simple.

This isn't a negotiation in good faith anymore, they fucked that up a long time ago.

A bunch of Dicks, assholes and pussies

 

[Chilla]

Pretty sure operational decisions (ex company sale ) are with the board @Chilla, personally I haven't come across ASX listing rules which state that sale of their major project needs shareholders approval ; happy to be proved wrong

Will definitely require shareholders approval. Would you be happy for the BoD to make an operational decision to sell the asset for $1 without you as a shareholder having a say? And that’s not $1 per share….but $1 as total consideration. In your view the BoD would be able to make that decision on your behalf as an operational decision…. Can’t happen.

 

[The Fox]

It will be a requirement in AVZ’s charter as part of being a ASX listed entity and ASIC registration. Listed entities can’t dispose of a significant asset, which in this case is AVZ’s only asset, without majority shareholder approval. They will likely need to call an EGM With explanatory statements and BoD recommendations and reasons why they seek shareholders to vote on whether or not they agree to a sale of the Dathcom shareholding or a complete sale of AVZI, which is the holding subsidiary of the DRC assets.

Fair enough. I've read the companies Constitution (I assume this is what you are referring to as the Charter). Seems Directors have the ability to sell the major asset subject only to listing rules and Corporations Act of course.

I wonder how the ASX listing rules specifically come into play for AVZ Minerals Ltd or its subsidiary in the sale of a major asset should AVZ not resume trading again? Just a thought.

Cheers

 

[Chilla]

Fair enough. I've read the companies Constitution (I assume this is what you are referring to as the Charter). Seems Directors have the ability to sell the major asset subject only to listing rules and Corporations Act of course.

I wonder how the ASX listing rules specifically come into play for AVZ Minerals Ltd or its subsidiary in the sale of a major asset should AVZ not resume trading again? Just a thought.

Cheers

Look at the sale of 24% to CATH for what’s required.

Edit I just checked the Cath proposal and the 24% didn’t request shareholders approval.

 

[Azzler]

Vote or not, everyone votes get us the fuck out of here $$$$$$$$

 

[Winenut]

I note you’re quite the film buff mate. In particular you often post the scene from goodfellas with Ray Liotta getting the windup from joe Pesci. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fine film but can I recommend another Scorsese film which also features De niro, The King of Comedy, seems a bit more apt

You're watching me too closely chief

I don't remember a fucking thing you've posted....

 

[WPM60]

fucking

Nor me you.

Just sayin’

 

[Winenut]

Nor me you.

Just sayin’

yeah...

right....

 

[Winenut]

Just sayin'



Fuck me .....at least you copied me enough to actually get the punctuation and grammar correct

 

[CHB]

From what I've heard. I'm content. Not happy, not sad.

Just want to exit and move on with my life.

That's a bit disappointing

 

[Scud458]

What numbers are we hearing long time holders? For the sake of not recalling conversations with taxi drivers is it:
Option A: More than $1.52 but less than $2.
Option V: More than that.
Option Z: $16 and 2 hats?

 

[Winenut]

Just sayin'



Fuck me .....at least you copied me enough to actually get the punctuation and grammar correct

At least change to your other account and have a decent go...

Don't muck up spelling this word correctly .....no grammar or punctuation necessary

"Douche"

 

[Samus]

Can't see anything happening without a mining licence, nothing that ends in value for shareholders anyway. If management are negotiating anything the ML has to be a key part of it you'd imagine.

 

[pow4ade]

Spoiler

Pies

 

[ozmacca]

Can't see anything happening without a mining licence, nothing that ends in value for shareholders anyway. If management are negotiating anything the ML has to be a key part of it you'd imagine.

100% agree mate. I can’t imagine a single company on earth buying in to this who isn’t already somewhat involved in the (dodgy af) situation. Which sucks for us SH as it’s a tiny tiny group of potential buyers meaning bargaining power ain’t great.
Are there any solid sources for the goss on this thread tonight about asset sale etc?

 

[SilentOne]

Can't see anything happening without a mining licence, nothing that ends in value for shareholders anyway. If management are negotiating anything the ML has to be a key part of it you'd imagine.

Hi Sam,

People need to remember that the Mine has a tangible value with or without the Mining Licence. It would be implied that something being negotiated even without the mining license that the DRC have committed to approving the ML after the deal was done (simply an act of price manipulation) - no one is going to buy a dead asset.

Also keep in mind that AVZ has completed all the compliance/due diligence requirements for the issuance of the Mining License. Hmmmm how much did we spend? Its a walk in the park for the next person.

I honestly believe that AVZ is in a very strong position especially with all the litigation that is currently running. FT would want the litigation to end sooner than later - he wont want adverse findings and compensation rulings against the DRC. Oh and the World Bank has also been dragged into this whole debacle indirectly too.

No one is going to invest in a Battery Hub in the DRC without a solid supply of Lithium.

Large corporations must laugh at the shenanigans of the DRC when they are approached by their Ministers. It would be like a remake of the Benny Hill Show (no disrespect to Benny Hill) or Yes Minister.

SilentOne.- Simply a thought bubble

 

[The Fox]

Look at the sale of 24% to CATH for what’s required.

Edit I just checked the Cath proposal and the 24% didn’t request shareholders approval.

Thanks Chilla

So are you indicating in your last post that a wholly owned subsidiary like AVZ International Pty Ltd does not need AVZ Minerals Ltd shareholder approval to sell an asset?

I can’t pinpoint the ASX listing rule/s that stipulates if a subsidiary like AVZ International Pty Ltd was to dispose of the interest held in Manono, that the shareholders of AVZ Minerals Ltd would need to vote.

Anyway, if you or anyone else could share a link to the ASX listing rules that covers this item that would be most helpful thanks. If not, no stress, we may find out in the near future anyway if this is at all relevant or not.


Cheers