AVZ Discussion 2022

Xerof

Biding my Time 1971
To be frank, I think we need more Frank's around this place
Frankly, I couldn't agree more, quite frankly. What about you @Frank ? Hey, some terrific findings over the weekend eh?
 
  • Like
  • Fire
  • Haha
Reactions: 16 users
This new twitter account by Der Geist is still spouting the same rubbish as the original account.


This is the same screenshot as he previously posted with the wrong file number quoted. He claimed that it was CD/LSH/RCCM/19-B-00935 but the file number on the document was actually CD/KIN/RCCM/16-8-12284. Screenshot:

Could someone with a Twitter account call him/her (Li@lithiumanalytic) out on this falsehood please. Thank you.

I fink he more honest den you cookie girl
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

BRICK

Regular
I reckon when we get through all this BS we pool our $ and buy a ticket for Franck to get his arse over to Hillary's for some drinks with Jag in charge of proceedings! :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO::cool:
As long as Thursday is there... :ROFLMAO:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users

BRICK

Regular
This is the point that has been making me think Zijin don't believe they have a leg to stand on. Why would they initiate a meeting with anyone if they actually believed they had a leg to stand on. They would just move on to their next shonky deal like a good real estate agent, no emotion involved just business. They wouldn't suggest arbitration because they feel sorry for AVZ. Zijin have more than likely moved on from this deal. Franck is a champion! View attachment 7408
We better send 2 fruit baskets.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 4 users

TDITD

Top 20
We better send 2 fruit baskets.
As long as the fruits rotten
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users

DiscoDanNZ

Regular
He's wiping the floor with that tosser

Replying to all of your Twitter/Franck posts here btw

frankthetank-oldschool.gif
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: 12 users

JAG

Top 20
1653261084698.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Fire
Reactions: 9 users

DiscoDanNZ

Regular
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 15 users
Not sure if this been discussed, saw something on twitter the other day that made be interested to look.

Could the difference be why we are suspended? Working out the rights below?

I assume the non coloured area is of no importance anymore, and the exploitation licence will turn into today's purple area.

Before:
Screenshot_20220113-073958_DuckDuckGo.jpg

After (Today)

Screenshot_20220523-091716_DuckDuckGo.jpg
 
  • Thinking
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users

LX600

Regular
Not sure if this been discussed, saw something on twitter the other day that made be interested to look.

Could the difference be why we are suspended? Working out the rights below?

I assume the non coloured area is of no importance anymore, and the exploitation licence will turn into today's purple area.

Before:
View attachment 7422
After (Today)

View attachment 7423
The Mining license area is right, which cruiser and Xefo clarified last night. The questions is the remaining part of 13359. @Roller62 may share some light here?
 
  • Like
  • Thinking
Reactions: 4 users

Xerof

Biding my Time 1971
The bit with the diagonal black lines becomes the area covered by the Mining license, the blank bit is the remaining unexplored portion of the original 13359, and will become a 5 year exploration renewal. It's really simple to understand, if you read the May 4th announcement
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22 users

LX600

Regular


He seems worried about AJN is stealing this part. Can anyone with French watch the video and let us know?
 
  • Like
  • Thinking
Reactions: 4 users

Xerof

Biding my Time 1971
He worries too much. Nothing to do with 13359 (or our other tenements for that matter)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users

TDITD

Top 20
AJN with an AVZ favourite Klaus Eckhof seem to have favour with those high up in the mining scene still in DRC, I would have thought he was tarred with the Kabila brush an shunned, obviously not so.
Interestingly only as recently as may 8th a certain Mr. Nigel Fergerson resigned as a director at AJN.

IMO these talks with AJN have obviously been going on for quite some time this is no small arrangement they have, Nigel quitting as director to not have any conflict of interests as they want AVZ as major holder in Manono.

This is another reason that imo strengthens my resolve that AVZ will come out of this as the controlling holding in Dathcom

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
The bit with the diagonal black lines becomes the area covered by the Mining license, the blank bit is the remaining unexplored portion of the original 13359, and will become a 5 year exploration renewal. It's really simple to understand, if you read the May 4th announcement
Right ok thanks mate, so as that area is still within the 'blue' lined area it's all good. The 'blank' didn't really line up to anything I could see in the key hence my question.

Cheers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users

Xerof

Biding my Time 1971
Right ok thanks mate, so as that area is still within the 'blue' lined area it's all good. The 'blank' didn't really line up to anything I could see in the key hence my question.

Cheers
Yeah, the Cadastre folks don't seem to bother too much. It's never timely, and usually incomplete. I guess they don't have a category to cover the transitional period, but remember the last update was approval of PE (ML) and now we just await the update of the PE and PR split for 13359.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 13 users

Winenut

Go AVZ!
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users


Google Translate:

Article 765:

"Notwithstanding the principle of free transferability set out in Article 764 above, the articles of association or agreements mentioned in Article 2-1 above may stipulate certain limitations to the transfer of shares under the conditions provided for in Articles 765- 1 to 771-3 below. Limitations on the transmission of shares cannot operate in the event of succession, liquidation of community of property between spouses, or transfer either to a spouse or to an ascendant or a descendant."


Article 765-1:

"The inalienability clauses affecting shares are only valid if they provide for a prohibition of a period less than or equal to ten (10) years and if they are justified by a serious and legitimate reason."

Article 771-2:

"It may be stipulated in the articles of association or the agreements of article 2-1 above that the shareholder who intends to transfer all or part of his shares is required to notify one or more other shareholders, who may inform the assignor that they exercise a right of pre-emption at the prices and conditions which have been notified to it."


Article 771-3:

"In the event that a pre-emption clause is stipulated in the articles of association, any transfer of shares carried out in violation of the pre-emption right is void.

In the event that a preemption clause is stipulated in the agreements of article 2-1 above, any transfer of shares carried out in violation of the right of preemption is void when it is demonstrated that one of the beneficiaries was aware of it or could not be unaware of its existence.
"


Conclusion:
COMINIERE violated Article 773-1 of the OHADA corporate law when it sold 15% of Dathcom to Jin Cheng. This sale was void by corporate law because AVZ was aware of its pre-emptive right to purchase the 15% from COMINIERE.

DYOR. IMO
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Fire
Reactions: 38 users

Winenut

Go AVZ!


Google Translate:

Article 765:

"Notwithstanding the principle of free transferability set out in Article 764 above, the articles of association or agreements mentioned in Article 2-1 above may stipulate certain limitations to the transfer of shares under the conditions provided for in Articles 765- 1 to 771-3 below. Limitations on the transmission of shares cannot operate in the event of succession, liquidation of community of property between spouses, or transfer either to a spouse or to an ascendant or a descendant."


Article 765-1:

"The inalienability clauses affecting shares are only valid if they provide for a prohibition of a period less than or equal to ten (10) years and if they are justified by a serious and legitimate reason."

Article 771-2:

"It may be stipulated in the articles of association or the agreements of article 2-1 above that the shareholder who intends to transfer all or part of his shares is required to notify one or more other shareholders, who may inform the assignor that they exercise a right of pre-emption at the prices and conditions which have been notified to it."


Article 771-3:

"In the event that a pre-emption clause is stipulated in the articles of association, any transfer of shares carried out in violation of the pre-emption right is void.

In the event that a preemption clause is stipulated in the agreements of article 2-1 above, any transfer of shares carried out in violation of the right of preemption is void when it is demonstrated that one of the beneficiaries was aware of it or could not be unaware of its existence.
"


Conclusion:
COMINIERE violated Article 773-1 of the OHADA corporate law when it sold 15% of Dathcom to Jin Cheng. This sale was void by corporate law because AVZ was aware of its pre-emptive right to purchase the 15% from COMINIERE.

DYOR. IMO

Great post

cheers
 
  • Like
  • Fire
Reactions: 8 users

TDITD

Top 20
I think @MDRY meant one fruit basket for Franck and one for Jens
Ooops :ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO:. I thought he meant to send to Zijin.
The Office Oops GIF



those men NEED alcohol after dealing with such trolls.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
Top Bottom