AVZ Discussion 2022

[Doc]

More importantly will AVZ be removed from The Stock Exchange forum?

 

[Doc]

For those smarter then I what’s the implications of delisting in regards to FIRB and what they can/can’t enforce with sale of assets now?

 

[BRICK]

More importantly will AVZ be removed from The Stock Exchange forum?

Nahhhhh. Because Hoots will need to go somewhere to get his updates.

 

[lellep]

F

Compensation made to AVZ through diverting billions of dollars of World Bank funds earmarked for DRC? Dream on. We could however hope for pressure to be placed on DRC by the World Bank to come to terms.

Though they've not seemed that fazed so far given that a big tranche of WB funds is already being withheld from DRC and yet the authorities are still deciding to ignore the ICSID rulings. And it's not just because they don't have a government in place.

I do agree that this kind of pressure from their international donors may be our best (or only) option in the end to get the folks around a table. But saying oh we'll just get compensation out of donor funds "should it be needed" shows a misunderstanding of how that kind of tied aid works.

Fair enough!

 

[JAG]

I have the same sentiment as the below FIW

 

[Lucas Don Velor]

For those smarter then I what’s the implications of delisting in regards to FIRB and what they can/can’t enforce with sale of assets now?

IMO... this is a great question! Especially with regards to "a listed entity gives rise to inherent complications"... interestingly vague!

 

[RHyNO]

Tommy,

Need I remind you that we still have the ICSID and ICC to play out - I am quietly confident.

Lets see how the shorters go - poor things it must be hurting.

Regards,

SilentOne

Thanks for the reminder, need I remind you that absolutely no one involved in this on the Chinese or DRC side will adhere to any rulings or acknowledge the court. And before you say it. Th IMF also don’t give 2 fucks

 

[Jazz]

IMO... this is a great question! Especially with regards to "a listed entity gives rise to inherent complications"... interestingly vague!

My initial response to that was that for years we have been fighting with one, or both, hands tied behind our back. Partly due to the compliance requirements of the ASX. Maybe being unlisted gives is some more freedom, perhaps to play by some less stringent rules. Maybe helpful when dealing with a country which has no rules. All just a a guess though.

 

[John25]

I think its time for a bit of honesty/clarity about our situation .We have given the BoD 2 years of secretive leadership & an open letter by Nigel to SH’s would be greatly appreciated .The BoD have gotten off fairly lightly with a limited Q&A at Frasiers & no Q&A from SH’s at the last AGM ,the main task was to keep Fat Fucks off the board in which SH’s did

 

[SilentOne]

Thanks for the reminder, need I remind you that absolutely no one involved in this on the Chinese or DRC side will adhere to any rulings or acknowledge the court. And before you say it. Th IMF also don’t give 2 fucks

Tommy,

But you do know that ICSID rulings are enforceable or am I wrong?

I suspect that there are allot of DRC Assets outside the DRC, some may even have been embezzled - but again I could be wrong.

Lets see how this plays out.

I am eternally optimistic.

Regards,

SilentOne

 

[RHyNO]

Tommy,

But you do know that ICSID rulings are enforceable or am I wrong?

I suspect that there are allot of DRC Assets outside the DRC, some may even have been embezzled - but again I could be wrong.

Lets see how this plays out.

I am eternally optimistic.

Regards,

SilentOne

By whom and what medium are they enforced?

 

[SilentOne]

By whom and what medium are they enforced?

Non-compliance with an award from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) can have several consequences, primarily because such non-compliance directly contravenes the obligations that member states have agreed to under the ICSID Convention. While the Convention itself does not specify penalties for non-compliance, there are indirect repercussions and broader implications for a state that fails to honor an ICSID award. Here are some of the potential consequences:

1. Legal and Financial Consequences:
   • Interest on Unpaid Awards: Typically, ICSID awards include provisions for interest to accrue on any unpaid sums. Thus, the financial burden on the non-compliant state can increase over time as interest accrues on the outstanding amount.
   • Enforcement in Other Jurisdictions: The aggrieved party can seek enforcement of the award in any of the countries that are signatories to the ICSID Convention. This can lead to the seizure or freezing of state assets located in foreign jurisdictions, though this is subject to international laws concerning sovereign immunity.
2. Political and Diplomatic Repercussions:
   • Strain on International Relations: Non-compliance can strain the diplomatic relations between the non-compliant state and the home country of the aggrieved investor, potentially affecting bilateral trade, investment, and political cooperation.
   • Impact on International Standing: Persistent non-compliance or disregard for international arbitration awards can tarnish a state's reputation in the international community, potentially making other countries and international investors wary of engaging with it.
3. Economic and Investment Impact:
   • Reduced Foreign Investment: A reputation for non-compliance with international arbitration awards can deter foreign investors, who may see it as a sign of legal unpredictability and a high-risk environment. This could lead to a decrease in foreign direct investment (FDI), which can be crucial for economic development.
   • Credit Rating and Borrowing Costs: International financial markets and credit rating agencies might view non-compliance as indicative of a broader governance issue, potentially leading to a downgrade in credit ratings. This can increase the cost of borrowing for the country on international markets.
4. Legal Precedents and Future Disputes:
   • Influence on Future Cases: Non-compliance might influence the proceedings and rulings of future international disputes involving the state. Arbitrators in other forums might view the state’s non-compliance as a negative factor, potentially influencing dispute resolution outcomes unfavorably against the state.

While these are not direct "penalties" in the traditional sense of punitive measures imposed by a governing body, they are significant negative consequences that can affect multiple aspects of a nation's political, economic, and legal landscape. States typically weigh these potential repercussions carefully when deciding whether to comply with an ICSID award.

I am not an expert in this area - please do your own research.

Regards,

SilentOne.

 

[RHyNO]

Agreed

Also agree! I think the freedom afforded by not being ASX listed will make us nimble and capable of doing business in this corrupt space

 

[RHyNO]

Non-compliance with an award from the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) can have several consequences, primarily because such non-compliance directly contravenes the obligations that member states have agreed to under the ICSID Convention. While the Convention itself does not specify penalties for non-compliance, there are indirect repercussions and broader implications for a state that fails to honor an ICSID award. Here are some of the potential consequences:

1. Legal and Financial Consequences:
   • Interest on Unpaid Awards: Typically, ICSID awards include provisions for interest to accrue on any unpaid sums. Thus, the financial burden on the non-compliant state can increase over time as interest accrues on the outstanding amount.
   • Enforcement in Other Jurisdictions: The aggrieved party can seek enforcement of the award in any of the countries that are signatories to the ICSID Convention. This can lead to the seizure or freezing of state assets located in foreign jurisdictions, though this is subject to international laws concerning sovereign immunity.
2. Political and Diplomatic Repercussions:
   • Strain on International Relations: Non-compliance can strain the diplomatic relations between the non-compliant state and the home country of the aggrieved investor, potentially affecting bilateral trade, investment, and political cooperation.
   • Impact on International Standing: Persistent non-compliance or disregard for international arbitration awards can tarnish a state's reputation in the international community, potentially making other countries and international investors wary of engaging with it.
3. Economic and Investment Impact:
   • Reduced Foreign Investment: A reputation for non-compliance with international arbitration awards can deter foreign investors, who may see it as a sign of legal unpredictability and a high-risk environment. This could lead to a decrease in foreign direct investment (FDI), which can be crucial for economic development.
   • Credit Rating and Borrowing Costs: International financial markets and credit rating agencies might view non-compliance as indicative of a broader governance issue, potentially leading to a downgrade in credit ratings. This can increase the cost of borrowing for the country on international markets.
4. Legal Precedents and Future Disputes:
   • Influence on Future Cases: Non-compliance might influence the proceedings and rulings of future international disputes involving the state. Arbitrators in other forums might view the state’s non-compliance as a negative factor, potentially influencing dispute resolution outcomes unfavorably against the state.

While these are not direct "penalties" in the traditional sense of punitive measures imposed by a governing body, they are significant negative consequences that can affect multiple aspects of a nation's political, economic, and legal landscape. States typically weigh these potential repercussions carefully when deciding whether to comply with an ICSID award.

I am not an expert in this area - please do your own research.

Regards,

SilentOne.

Amazing thanks for the insight silent one. Greatly appreciated

 

[tonster66]

Except Jan who managed to sell all his shares before the halt…..

and Johnston, not all but some

 

[Miljew91]

Amazing thanks for the insight silent one. Greatly appreciated

I hope everyone knows this isn't the real Tommy from afr lol

 

[Winenut]

Haha what? Nigel’s been good actually and put up with a lot of shit especially when in country. Him and Ben definitely have my respect I’ve heard a few things.

Rest of them can probably move on they’ve got plenty of shares and will be rewarded if we are

Apart from some excellent skills they bring to the table the appointment of additional board members I believe was partly to limit the number of available board positions and help in a strategic way to keep those MMGA and Fat Tail cunts from getting a seat on AVZ for their grubby fucking corrupted arses....

Or something like that

 

[Cumquat Cap]

Interesting pieces having reread; Fat tail must put up security to continue to the value of expected payout should avz win - I’ll take Peter’s house thanks.

Locke had 2 x tranches one for lit funding and another for opex (less expensive) avz should be sweet until September before needing these at all.

Mentioned sale of asset/divestment for the first time.

Think we’re done with Cath/Catl which is a good thing in my mind but both parties playing possum and hence doubt we’ll get 20m from them.

I recon being delisted would make it easier to sell (unconfirmed) and judging by the agm results most shareholders would be stoked to vote yes should this occur.

 

[Doc]

Interesting pieces having reread; Fat tail must put up security to continue to the value of expected payout should avz win - I’ll take Peter’s house thanks.

Locke had 2 x tranches one for lit funding and another for opex (less expensive) avz should be sweet until September before needing these at all.

Mentioned sale of asset/divestment for the first time.

Think we’re done with Cath/Catl which is a good thing in my mind but both parties playing possum and hence doubt we’ll get 20m from them.

I recon being delisted would make it easier to sell (unconfirmed) and judging by the agm results most shareholders would be stoked to vote yes should this occur.

As long as we dont have to pay 20m to Cath then kick the back stabbing bastards out the door.

 

[Cumquat Cap]

Think we’ll dicktease Cath along to avoid that happening with no real intention for us to mine unless something drastic happens. Great result as we’re not having to give them 24% for next to nothing.

They are all the same and beholden to Chinese government so fuck them