AVZ Discussion 2022

[9cardomaha]

1

 

[Dom1974]

@9cardomaha If Cominiere and Zijin are in a JV (Manono Lithium), then aren’t Zijin liable as well under the JV by association with Cominiere? If Court tells Cominiere to stop, the whole JV comes to a halt I would have thought. That’s for ICC. ICSID different kettle of fish. Govt will be instructed to stop everything regardless who’s involved. Hopefully that will make Chinese come to the table with a decent offer. Otherwise it’ll just sit there.

 

[wombat74]

You are correct, but its the JV (singular) that is in breach so 100K from the JV per day. One caveat to this, it is possible that ICSID supercedes ICC, so ICC penalties stop ramping up and we only have ICSID measures going forward. but as i pointed out above, this is far better than just having ICC injunctions in place because Z don't give a flying fuck.

Cheers mate . Are you concerned about securing the $20mil ? Does Nigel have a back up plan if Locke decline ? What happens if we can't raise funds ? If stall/sh1t f--kery tactics continue after the election at what point does Nigel go all in for compensation ? Surely the countdown has begun ?Cheers

 

[9cardomaha]

1

 

[BRICK]

Ganfeng offtake was christmas time years ago, still waiting on the easter eggs

My easter eggs were getting rid of MMGA

 

[Winenut]

My easter eggs were getting rid of MMGA

No.... that was the Christmas gift

 

[9cardomaha]

1

 

[Hodlandwin69]

No.... that was the Christmas gift

I don't think this is the last we'll see of MMGA unfortunately.
Their big dog lawyers don't seem like the people to walk away without a fight

 

[Strongman]

• No concerns from my end for 20mil funding from Locke.
• I've previously said Locke funding is the backup. But backup for backup would be to find another fund house, at a potentially steeper rate. DD fee is only if they find we have omitted critical information ahead of DD, but DLA seems confident for back-to-back wins, so DD is not an issue in my mind.
• The backup for the backup of the backup (ie no funding) is to get DFAT involved, we already have comms with the embassy, i know DFAT is also aware of the issue - increasing tariffs on our minerals to China would do the trick @DFAT if you're reading take notes. Sidenote is that we have 11m in the bank, legal fees didn't seem to drain that much last quarter right? 20m additional is just a kicker, taking us to 2030 and beyond which no one wants.
• Stalling and shit fuckery will continue from Z and C period, elections be damned - just need to get more pieces on the board. We have ICC, soon will have ICSID, these will wake the DRC, and if it doesnt then we cross that bridge when we come to it.
  • I doubt they can ignore it though, or at minimum, someone foots the bill on their behalf. Speculation doesn't help anyone, so leave it at that.
• Countdowns are variable, my watch can go up to 999 days, its been ticking away, so i'd argue it has not stopped?

edit: I will add that submission and preparing documentation for ICC/ICSID is the brunt of legal fees, and since all the cases cover similar aspects, a lot of the prep work that DLA has going on is only billed once and then used across different cases.

Well said 9card. Always good to hear your reasoned and rational thoughts. Your a bloody gem mate ...cheers

 

[netoo_sethi]

China found a loophole in what we got at ICC - slimy fucks but technically not breaking the law. Cominiere on the other hand are retarded, but that is back firing and DLA already submitting snippets of 'Cominiere's great work on the site' which is damaging to Faksen's claim that Z is not in breach and conducting all the work by themselves....

ICSID providing the blanket measure to cover everything would stop Z in their tracks IMO.

Hi evergone,

Thanks @9cardomaha for your valuable insights. A few, i beg to differ, as below:

The screenshot below is from Nov-15-2023 ICC Opinion/Order.

Good morning /afternoon,

Thanks David for the HC screenshots.

There is no legal loophole that C. and/or Z. could exploit from the 62 page Nov-15 ICC Order.

You are making sound deductions from facts and laws, however, i feel, you did not or may have not accurately deduced meaning of the two non-ambigous words (in red, screenshot).

We are not talking about whether Dathcom JV termination is legal or illegal, that is what ICC said. We are merely focussing on that 15775 is a JV entity with 61-39 between Z. And C. And therefore by virtue of this Z. majority owned Manono lithium, any work by C. is in DIRECT violation AND/OR any work by Z. leads to C. in INDIRECT violation of the Order.

There is NO loophole, Courts in Injunctive cases mostly Order blanket statements such as this highlighted in the above picture for the ONLY reason that any remote interpretation or a corner-case exception should be avoided by all parties.

Finally, in non-legal layman terms, because Manono Lithium is a 61-39 JV, work done by Z. that results in gainful progress of the 15775 tenaments DIRECTLY benefits C. and hence C. violates the Arb. Order.

This quote "Cominiere is enjoined from taking any action ..." (from above) came in the ICC first grant of AVZ injunction (April 2023) - after which Dathcom dissolved and 15775 established - this is direct violation by C.

That is why, AVZ submitted $19m from accured daily fines started April and ending Nov-15.

In May-2023, C. dissolved dathcom. After that happens, when it happens, who does and what he does are ALL moot issues. The starting damage is done and is irrversible, irrevokable and non-trivial. Period.

From global lawyer on X, below:

"So even if Zijin's work on the licences could not be directly attributed to Cominiere, the mere fact that they have become part of a new JV "Manono Lithium" is a violation of the judgment and causes damages. Whether the penalty is triggered once, twice or three times cannot be said with certainty. For that we would need to know the court's practice."

"It is completely irrelevant what happened afterwards. The first offence was the dissolution of Dathcom and the creation of Manono Lithium and the collaboration with Cami and MoP to get the Zijin/Cominière joint venture up and running and registered in the cadastre. It is completely irrelevant who is now carrying out which field work."
--------------------

 

[wombat74]

• No concerns from my end for 20mil funding from Locke.
• I've previously said Locke funding is the backup. But backup for backup would be to find another fund house, at a potentially steeper rate. DD fee is only if they find we have omitted critical information ahead of DD, but DLA seems confident for back-to-back wins, so DD is not an issue in my mind.
• The backup for the backup of the backup (ie no funding) is to get DFAT involved, we already have comms with the embassy, i know DFAT is also aware of the issue - increasing tariffs on our minerals to China would do the trick @DFAT if you're reading take notes. Sidenote is that we have 11m in the bank, legal fees didn't seem to drain that much last quarter right? 20m additional is just a kicker, taking us to 2030 and beyond which no one wants.
• Stalling and shit fuckery will continue from Z and C period, elections be damned - just need to get more pieces on the board. We have ICC, soon will have ICSID, these will wake the DRC, and if it doesnt then we cross that bridge when we come to it.
  • I doubt they can ignore it though, or at minimum, someone foots the bill on their behalf. Speculation doesn't help anyone, so leave it at that.
• Countdowns are variable, my watch can go up to 999 days, its been ticking away, so i'd argue it has not stopped?

edit: I will add that submission and preparing documentation for ICC/ICSID is the brunt of legal fees, and since all the cases cover similar aspects, a lot of the prep work that DLA has going on is only billed once and then used across different cases.

Thanks again for your response . My concern has been the massive value of the Manono project by far out ways any penalties suffered .That is if we take the view China controls the DRC Government . Which most would agree it does . Either way crunch time is fast approaching for the direction this will go . 3 months tops IMO . imo

 

[Roon]

Thanks again for your response . My concern has been the massive value of the Manono project by far out ways any penalties suffered .That is if we take the view China controls the DRC Government . Which most would agree it does . Either way crunch time is fast approaching for the direction this will go . 3 months tops IMO . imo

I also hope that the financial penalty imposed at ICSID for contravension of the emergency orders substantially outweighs that of the ICC which, loophole or not, doesn't seem to have had much impact.

Perhaps as stated above the broader blanket coverage of the order will reduce wriggle room, and also the involvement directly of the DRC authorities may present a different outcome. Will be interesting to see how Zijin plays it, if their argument has previously been based on them not technically falling under the last injunction

 

[9cardomaha]

1

 

[TLH]

Are you expecting China/Cominiere to follow ICSID orders ?

I take the view AVZ have done everything possible to enforce their legal rights and are continuing to do so…as we have learnt it is impossible to predict the behaviour of these evil parties but our fight won’t stop.
DRC are fully aware they are entangled in a political mess caused by their inability to enforce their own laws- this global reflection will continue to damage them and has made a mockery of their democracy.
This is all stating the obvious but as there are so many negative rabbit holes, staying focused on the massive upside is what keeps me sane.
I remain hopeful also, we are now getting global support from many governments who are aware and appalled with the corrupt ways Zijin conduct business to take advantage of third world countries (Nigel not advertising this support).
Stay positive people- besides showing our support for AVZ and helping to expose the corruption, there is little else we can do.

 

[cruiser51]

Some weekend reading:

https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2023-09/india-lithium-sourcing-roadmap.pdf

 

[Newcomer]

 

[Remark]

View attachment 52115

 

[The Fox]

View attachment 52115

What's the relevance of this Newby ?

I'd would rather see one day, ICSID Arbitration Rule 43(1) invoked. The parties can ask the Tribunal to render an award embodying the settlement agreement (Arbitration Rule 43(2)).

 

[Ashlee]

I don't think this is the last we'll see of MMGA unfortunately.
Their big dog lawyers don't seem like the people to walk away without a fight

Big Dog lawyers still want to get paid and if not they will cease acting.

 

[FilthyRich2]

It seems that AVZ without prejudice to our position has agreed to have an Arbitration session before ICSID hands down a ruling
Possibly Other parties conceding and giving in to avoid the ICSID decision becoming public and the whole corruption story unfolding in DRC
We clearly have the upper hand in proceedings, so this may be a chance for DRC to rebuild working relationship
AVZ should release a ASX update if this in fact what they have agreed too.
Personally would prefer that they proceed without arbitration session to let the corrupt parties be jailed and put in a firing line based on ICSID outcome.
ICSID would have handed their decision down by next Friday, this may have delayed that process.
There should be no compassion from AVZ as we didn't break the law