AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
On balance, probably the smart decision is not to be online.
AVZ need to tightly manage the meeting.
Online would give a stage for folk to grandstand and also provide video that could be misrepresented or used out of context.
Not implying MAGA would grandstand or stoop so low, of course.
Not expecting much new info to come out of the meeting anyway. Just want to see the vote go our way. Hopefully that will spur on DRC to finalise the MOU, or generate a buy out.
AVZ need to tightly manage the meeting.
Online would give a stage for folk to grandstand and also provide video that could be misrepresented or used out of context.
Not implying MAGA would grandstand or stoop so low, of course.
Not expecting much new info to come out of the meeting anyway. Just want to see the vote go our way. Hopefully that will spur on DRC to finalise the MOU, or generate a buy out.
9cardomaha
Regular
First domino to fall is now looking like the increased emergency injunction, which conveninently is 24th Nov. Cominiere managed to delay submissions to 9th of November... + 15 days, whoops missed the AGM.
They didn't even do anything particularly clever, just copped the late submission fine of a few thousand euros - paid for by Z. But at least it gives a bad impression for the arbitrator who was already favouring AVZ.
DLA Piper earning their keep, and doubling down on the favourable ruling for 50k penalty - in the modified injunction are things like rolling back 15775, verdict on hydro and increasing penalty to 150k as i've mentioned. Everyone worried about enforcement needs to understand how injunctions with penalties work.....
The injunction is provisional and will continue to count upward until AVZ decides to go before a tribunal to enforce. Once it is enforced, the counter stops and we are paid whatever sum we are owed, along with any verdicts which are stipulated in the injunction. ICC has a very high enforcement rate for injunctions and only under extreme circumstances does an injunction not get enforced when it goes to tribunal.
As for monetary fines, these are placed on Cominiere but ICC's jurisdiction gives it power over all major international financial institutions. So Z wants to pay money to C.... it'll get flagged and paid to AVZ until the fines are all paid off. So the money is going to come our way regardless... not optimal but could be fucking worse.
On ownership rights, ICC are a little weaker, the judgements need to be taken back to local DRC courts for enforcement.... this is a pretty big issue because i don't think anyone here trusts the DRC judicial system. But silver lining is, if DRC local courts refuse to enforce, we have grounds to recalculate to monetary damages, and the ICC can just continue adding to the monetary penalty. Again, not optimal but better than nothing.
My assumption is that if we can get the monetary penalty high enough upon enforcement, then Cominiere can't pay and Z doesn't want to foot the bill, then we can negotiate something.
On another note, we submitted an emergency request to have the 15% ICC case withdrawn. Z has managed to delay that to early decemember
They didn't even do anything particularly clever, just copped the late submission fine of a few thousand euros - paid for by Z. But at least it gives a bad impression for the arbitrator who was already favouring AVZ.
DLA Piper earning their keep, and doubling down on the favourable ruling for 50k penalty - in the modified injunction are things like rolling back 15775, verdict on hydro and increasing penalty to 150k as i've mentioned. Everyone worried about enforcement needs to understand how injunctions with penalties work.....
The injunction is provisional and will continue to count upward until AVZ decides to go before a tribunal to enforce. Once it is enforced, the counter stops and we are paid whatever sum we are owed, along with any verdicts which are stipulated in the injunction. ICC has a very high enforcement rate for injunctions and only under extreme circumstances does an injunction not get enforced when it goes to tribunal.
As for monetary fines, these are placed on Cominiere but ICC's jurisdiction gives it power over all major international financial institutions. So Z wants to pay money to C.... it'll get flagged and paid to AVZ until the fines are all paid off. So the money is going to come our way regardless... not optimal but could be fucking worse.
On ownership rights, ICC are a little weaker, the judgements need to be taken back to local DRC courts for enforcement.... this is a pretty big issue because i don't think anyone here trusts the DRC judicial system. But silver lining is, if DRC local courts refuse to enforce, we have grounds to recalculate to monetary damages, and the ICC can just continue adding to the monetary penalty. Again, not optimal but better than nothing.
My assumption is that if we can get the monetary penalty high enough upon enforcement, then Cominiere can't pay and Z doesn't want to foot the bill, then we can negotiate something.
On another note, we submitted an emergency request to have the 15% ICC case withdrawn. Z has managed to delay that to early decemember
Samus
Top 20
Gang of financial criminals. The Director General Celestin Kibeya of @cominiereSA is a mafia, a corrupt person who received $2 million from corruption Currently we are in the process of identifying houses and plots and other real estate of Kibeya, a mafia
A quick update for those looking to add their SMSF holding to Automic for voting.
The HIN number provided by BT eg: 12345678900 needs to have the prefix "X" added to it for it to work with Automic. The HIN provided by BT will not show this prefix when you receive it.
So it should be entered into Automic as X12345678900. Without the X Automic will not process it.
Cumquat Cap
Regular
Great to see CominiereSA and their cronies freaking out overnight - I bet they didn't expect their corruption to be this public.
If they had PR13359 in the bag they wouldn't waste time on twitter threatening kiki's life and doxing people.
Just need to get through the AGM now, am I right in thinking Bellemel (zijin proxy) sold a large chunk before the halt to collapse the stock price? Hopefully kills their voting power
If they had PR13359 in the bag they wouldn't waste time on twitter threatening kiki's life and doxing people.
Just need to get through the AGM now, am I right in thinking Bellemel (zijin proxy) sold a large chunk before the halt to collapse the stock price? Hopefully kills their voting power
BRICK
Regular
And we all gotta keep the pressure on them on X.
Lucas Don Velor
Regular
Hey CC, I posted back in May about Bellemal (see below)... add this tactic to the other corrupt dealings and it seems like a game of cat and mouse, but who's the cat?! We now have embassies, GOs & NGOs, western sideline investors etc, all on our side... Of all of our detractors, MMGA are the most despicable IMO!
Last edited:
9cardomaha
Regular
ICSID emergency ruling coming soon, ahead of AGM it seems. Oh what a court can do when Z and C aren't a part of it....
Edit: not sure if ICSID is a domino just yet, don't have submission documents so can't tell what's been asked for.
Edit: not sure if ICSID is a domino just yet, don't have submission documents so can't tell what's been asked for.
Cumquat Cap
Regular
Cummmmonnnnnnnnnnnnn 9card can be my lawyer any fucking day
9cardomaha
Regular
9cardomaha
Regular
My understanding of the case is that we filed against DRC for unlawful termination of 13359. So recent events like splitting and selling 15775 on the premise of termination violate the ongoing legal case, and hence the emergency request.
Seems pretty simple, not sure how good the DRC's team is and whether they are also using the delay tactics employed by Zijin. DRC also cited 'urgency' in the matter in their termination, so it makes it hard to request delays. Or at least that's how i'd argue the fucking thing.
Hoping for a favourable ruling - not sure what we asked for at ICSID, i'd say a cease order against DRC similar to the one we already got against Cominiere.
Writing this now, it feels like ICSID could be a domino. Z from memory opposed increasing emergency injunction against Cominiere because ‘the progress made and termination have all been orchestrated by the State not Cominiere, so the penalty against Cominiere is not valid given they are not the ones performing the actions, merely the recipient of favourable actions of the Government.' - obviously not verbatim, but that's the logic behind Fasken's argument in Paris.
Azzler
Top 20
Appreciate you filling us in mate. Cheers.
Retrobyte
Hates a beer
Similar threads
