AVZ Discussion 2022

[Lichione]

Jens Emil Soderlund

@emil_jens
$AVZ SHAREHOLDERS

Am hearing that some people are being contacted by the Chinese shareholders with the view to holding an EGM to remove directors.

If that’s the case all Australian shareholders will lose out, as Nigel and our BOD are fighting hard to get the entire licence for us including the extra 15%.

If the Board is removed then the new board will simply withdraw any ICC and ICSID actions and change management so that they can cut a deal for themselves to be in control and will most likely IMO “sell” out asset to one of their Chinese mates at a discounted rate.

Say NO to any Chinese driven EGM

and

If you have been approached please write to FIRB and advise them of this concerted action by Chinese entities working against Australian and our interests.
11:52 PM · Aug 4, 2023

Being with avz since 2019 and was in last year's Sydney shitshow, I would love ML with 90% of entire tenement.
The question is when and whether our cash can survive until then.

As a mum-and-dad holder, our avz investment is quite significant to the family and If any chance they can get released, would help mortgage etc in current circumstances. Yes, disappointingly, that might mean I am in the opinion of supporting negotiation/ discount/ TO etc, and matter to me is, by how much.

Also really want to get over the shit and stress. I believe a lot of members in this forum agree this view, some are happy to let go north for RD licence, some are happy for $12, (or 15 for z) plus cap. The matter is what's the outcome.

After that , I don't even need to think drc, zijin ....

Enjoy the weekend

 

[tonster66]

>50%

That would be easy to achieve I would think?

 

[Doc]

In the ICC Emergency Arbitration Proceedings it was ruled that Cominiere must pay 90% of AVZ's legal costs. Do we know if this happened? I cant see anything on qtrly. I believe it was circa $180k

​

 

[Doc]

That would be easy to achieve I would think?

Hopefully a few at the big end of town would vote no

 

[Mr Inappropriate]

Franck yet again teaching Kibeya a lesson

View attachment 41387
View attachment 41388
View attachment 41389

We paid $6m to Cominiere? Can someone please remind me what was for.

 

[Azzler]

We paid $6m to Cominiere? Can someone please remind me what was for.

For the 60% in dathcom.

 

[Scoota30]

Smells like we are getting really close! Come on Nige, take it home and give us the ASX Announcement we've all been waiting for!

 

[antimatter]

Can one of the more knowledgeable posters tell me if they get to a EGM what % of votes would they need to change the board?
I’m a bit disappointed I haven’t been contacted. Would love the opportunity to tell them to get fucked over the phone

Only need 5% of votes to call an EGM....

Sections 203C/D cover director removal by shareholders. For a public company this is done by Convening Shareholders’ Meeting

Under s.203D(2) a ‘notice of intention’ [given by a shareholder] for a motion to remove a director must be given to the company at least 2 months before an EGM is to be held – although such meeting can be held before the 2 months is up. The company must give the subject director a copy of the notice as soon as possible after receipt.

The director is entitled to put his case to shareholders by giving the company a written statement for circulation to shareholders and to speak to the motion at the meeting – s.203D(5)/(6). Note that the usual 21 days’ notice (28 days for a listed company) applies as the ‘short notice’ provision is not available for removal of a director – s.249H(3).

Removing of director(s) is considered as ordinary resolution (only needs >50% to pass) and not special resolution (needs >75% to pass).

 

[MoneyBags1348]

Only need 5% of votes to call an EGM....

View attachment 41413

Sections 203C/D cover director removal by shareholders. For a public company this is done by Convening Shareholders’ Meeting

Under s.203D(2) a ‘notice of intention’ [given by a shareholder] for a motion to remove a director must be given to the company at least 2 months before an EGM is to be held – although such meeting can be held before the 2 months is up. The company must give the subject director a copy of the notice as soon as possible after receipt.

The director is entitled to put his case to shareholders by giving the company a written statement for circulation to shareholders and to speak to the motion at the meeting – s.203D(5)/(6). Note that the usual 21 days’ notice (28 days for a listed company) applies as the ‘short notice’ provision is not available for removal of a director – s.249H(3).

Removing of director(s) is considered as ordinary resolution (only needs >50% to pass) and not special resolution (needs >75% to pass).

Might explain the real reason for the ICC delay. A good announcement by the company in the next week or two should see shareholders stay loyal to AVZ.

As many have said, it would be a desperate last ditch attempt by the Chinese who have been trying to usurp us this whole time.

The BOD and exec’s have been fighting these corrupt entities this whole time and between FIRB and the majority of shareholders (who have stayed strong against the corrupt Chinese companies involved) I personally see a positive update on our situation in the DRC, a new joint venture partnership that still includes CATH, and a positive outcome.

Shareholders here know I’ve always been sceptical of rumours and good news, not this time!

 

[Doc]

Only need 5% of votes to call an EGM....

View attachment 41413

Sections 203C/D cover director removal by shareholders. For a public company this is done by Convening Shareholders’ Meeting

Under s.203D(2) a ‘notice of intention’ [given by a shareholder] for a motion to remove a director must be given to the company at least 2 months before an EGM is to be held – although such meeting can be held before the 2 months is up. The company must give the subject director a copy of the notice as soon as possible after receipt.

The director is entitled to put his case to shareholders by giving the company a written statement for circulation to shareholders and to speak to the motion at the meeting – s.203D(5)/(6). Note that the usual 21 days’ notice (28 days for a listed company) applies as the ‘short notice’ provision is not available for removal of a director – s.249H(3).

Removing of director(s) is considered as ordinary resolution (only needs >50% to pass) and not special resolution (needs >75% to pass).

Not sure why Chinese entities would be ringing around to get 5%. They'd have it easy. If its true it must be more to gauge how close to the 50% they are.

 

[Azzler]

Might explain the real reason for the ICC delay. A good announcement by the company in the next week or two should see shareholders stay loyal to AVZ.

As many have said, it would be a desperate last ditch attempt by the Chinese who have been trying to usurp us this whole time.

The BOD and exec’s have been fighting these corrupt entities this whole time and between FIRB and the majority of shareholders (who have stayed strong against the corrupt Chinese companies involved) I personally see a positive update on our situation in the DRC, a new joint venture partnership that still includes CATH, and a positive outcome.

Shareholders here know I’ve always been sceptical of rumours and good news, not this time!

I believe time's up for the chinese, and this move is now too late.
We're bringing this baby home at long last!

 

[whales]

That would be easy to achieve I would think?

To call an EGM you only need less than 10% of shareholder approval .
But for resolutions to pass need greater than 50%.
But who on the Register is calling for an EGM??

 

[cruiser51]

If it is true that Zijin is getting its feelers out for an EGM to remove the BoD. I would say the advice from Piper will be to continue to play the cards close to the chest for the time being. Keep them in dark and treat them like a mushroom.
So far the policy has worked and Zijin is starting to lose patience, which is great.

They will not like it to lose face on the world podium of the mining industry and be shown that Zijin is a bunch of rogues relying on the support of the PRC, fukkum.
And the follow up will be a multi billion dollars damages claim addressed to Zijin and cohorts with All the Best Greetings for an enjoyable Xmas, fukkum again.

The carrying on on twitter by the fool, he calls himself cominiere, is also a clear indication that they are not comfortable at this very moment.

 

[Azzler]

If it is true that Zijin is getting its feelers out for an EGM to remove the BoD. I would say the advice from Piper will be to continue to play the cards close to the chest for the time being. Keep them in dark and treat them like a mushroom.
So far the policy has worked and Zijin is starting to lose patience, which is great.

They will not like it to lose face on the world podium of the mining industry and be shown that Zijin is a bunch of rogues relying on the support of the PRC, fukkum.
And the follow up will be a multi billion dollars damages claim addressed to Zijin and cohorts with All the Best Greetings for an enjoyable Xmas, fukkum again.

The carrying on on twitter by the fool, he calls himself cominiere, is also a clear indication that they are not comfortable at this very moment.

You just made me realise that (if true) this move by Zijin is to get information.
Knowing they couldn't get the support (50%) to sack the board.
But calling an EGM in itself is bad. Just hearing about such a move brings negative sentiment toward the BoD.

They hope that AVZ might release a progress announcement to combat any negative support to call an EGM, which was my initial thoughts as to what the BoD should do.
Or they plan to drum up discontent amongst shareholders and badger the BoD at the EGM to tell them what's going on.
Because there's no way they'd get a 50% vote.
If they have to cold call just to get 5% for an EGM, no chance of a 50% vote right?


So I agree, fuck 'em, keep them in the dark.
Besides like I said, I believe it's too late now

 

[Shire]

View attachment 41412
Hopefully a few at the big end of town would vote no

Quite a lot of Chinese votes though too

 

[Mr Inappropriate]

Daddy and daughter Lars now playing off each other on Twitter. What a morally repugnant pair they are.

Hopefully it’s a sign that the pendulum is swinging our way.

Oh, and since you’re reading here: Hi Lars! I need to ask - how does it feel when daddy licks the sweat off your back?

 

[Misfits]

 

[Retrobyte]

Deboss is assuming everyone with a Chinese sounding name is a baddie. Not the case at all.

 

[timb89]

You just made me realise that (if true) this move by Zijin is to get information.
Knowing they couldn't get the support (50%) to sack the board.
But calling an EGM in itself is bad. Just hearing about such a move brings negative sentiment toward the BoD.

They hope that AVZ might release a progress announcement to combat any negative support to call an EGM, which was my initial thoughts as to what the BoD should do.
Or they plan to drum up discontent amongst shareholders and badger the BoD at the EGM to tell them what's going on.
Because there's no way they'd get a 50% vote.
If they have to cold call just to get 5% for an EGM, no chance of a 50% vote right?


So I agree, fuck 'em, keep them in the dark.
Besides like I said, I believe it's too late now

If there was a chance they could have gotten 50% of the vote it would have happened a loooong time ago. Hence why suspension was necessary.

 

[timb89]

Deboss is assuming everyone with a Chinese sounding name is a baddie. Not the case at all.

Or perhaps just the most conservative/worst case scenario.