If both directors are voted out this year, does that mean 2 vacancies in the board for grab in the following AGM? Would that leave open opportunities for whoever wants to get on board to serve their own interests like what happened last AGM and we had to fight so hard to beat their ambition?
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
I hear you bud
TheCount
Regular
By memory, we have a “maximum number” on the Board. They don‘t have to be replaced I believe..
Azzler
Top 20
Geo is full of shit mate.
Why are you guys waiting for something from him?
I repeat, Geo has nothing! Possibly funding, but that's nothing to get excited about.
RHyNO
Regular
All they’ve done is have a break. Anyone suggesting otherwise has Stockholm syndrome. They have been doing sweet FA for months. On our dime. I wish I could raise funding in my company and when the only thing that was of concern to anyone turned out to be a significant problem. Just lock up their money and go golfing. Ah to be a mining boomer elite! What a gift…I mean grift.
Schnitzelfresser
Regular
Many here, like me, are pretty disappointed. An announced missing positive announcement, missing annual report, another delay in arbitration and dismissal of Deboss as (theoretical) communicator. He didn't even do that once.
You don't hear anything for a long time and when you do you only find out negative things, so why the hell keep your feet still if the tactic doesn't work. But maybe the BOD will prove me wrong soon. But now I'm writing again with this negative undertone and everyone will come back and praise the best BOD.
it's also possible that deboss didn't agree with nigel's strategy and decisions. there were discussions and they decided against the role again, because what's the point of communicating if everything is secret...
You don't hear anything for a long time and when you do you only find out negative things, so why the hell keep your feet still if the tactic doesn't work. But maybe the BOD will prove me wrong soon. But now I'm writing again with this negative undertone and everyone will come back and praise the best BOD.
it's also possible that deboss didn't agree with nigel's strategy and decisions. there were discussions and they decided against the role again, because what's the point of communicating if everything is secret...
AVZ International Pty Ltd. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (ARB/23/20) - DRC inability to pay
I understand that in the lead-up to ICSID arbitration, the DRC appointed five separate law firms, plus a number of high profile advisors to manage its defenses. Presumably the DRC has similar representation assisting it and Cominiere at ICC arbitration.
This level of support doesn't come cheap, and I wonder if the DRC stiffed them, and they responded by withdrawing services. If so, why am I not surprised.
Regardless of the reasons behind the DRC's inability to continue funding its position, there are potential ramifications for AVZ inc.
I asked both Perplexity and Gemini to summarise the potential ramifications from an AVZ perspective. This a summary of what they had to say:
1. Accelerated Legal Process and Default Judgement
There you go...food for thought.
However, I don't agree entirely with their responses, particularly about the likelihood of a negotiated settlement, which I think is the most likely scenario. If the DRC has no money for its defenses; it has no money for compensation. Therefore it may be restoration of PR13359 and the right to mine.
Cheers
F
Edit: This post assumes that the DRC is unable/unwilling to pay ICSID arbitration fees. At this stage the reason for suspension of proceedings is not public, and could indeed be something quite different.
I understand that in the lead-up to ICSID arbitration, the DRC appointed five separate law firms, plus a number of high profile advisors to manage its defenses. Presumably the DRC has similar representation assisting it and Cominiere at ICC arbitration.
This level of support doesn't come cheap, and I wonder if the DRC stiffed them, and they responded by withdrawing services. If so, why am I not surprised.
Regardless of the reasons behind the DRC's inability to continue funding its position, there are potential ramifications for AVZ inc.
I asked both Perplexity and Gemini to summarise the potential ramifications from an AVZ perspective. This a summary of what they had to say:
1. Accelerated Legal Process and Default Judgement
- Scenario: With the DRC's diminished capacity to participate in the proceedings, the tribunal may expedite the process. This could lead to a default judgment in favor of AVZ if the DRC fails to adequately defend its position.
- Historical Precedent: Numerous cases, particularly those involving resource-rich nations with fluctuating economic conditions, have seen similar outcomes. For example, in the case of Enrho St Limited v. Republic of Kazakhstan, the tribunal granted a default judgment due to the respondent's failure to participate.
2. Negotiated Settlement
- Scenario: While less likely, the DRC might seek a negotiated settlement to avoid a costly default judgment. This could involve concessions from the DRC, such as allowing AVZ to proceed with the Manono Lithium Project or providing financial compensation.
- Considerations: AVZ should carefully consider the potential benefits and risks of a negotiated settlement. While it may offer a quicker resolution, it could also result in a less favorable outcome than a default judgment.
3. Political Intervention
- Scenario: The DRC government may attempt to influence the tribunal's decision through political pressure or diplomatic channels. However, this could backfire and further damage the DRC's international reputation.
- Countermeasures: AVZ could employ diplomatic channels to counteract any political pressure from the DRC. Additionally, it could seek support from international organizations and governments with interests in promoting investment and upholding international law.
4. Financial Implications and Strategic Considerations
- Financial Gain: A favorable outcome for AVZ could result in significant financial gains, including compensation for lost profits and damages.
- Strategic Positioning: The case could strengthen AVZ's position as a major player in the lithium market, enhancing its reputation and attracting investment.
- Risk Mitigation: While the DRC's financial difficulties present a significant opportunity for AVZ, it is important to remain cautious and mitigate potential risks, such as unforeseen legal challenges or changes in the political landscape.
There you go...food for thought.
However, I don't agree entirely with their responses, particularly about the likelihood of a negotiated settlement, which I think is the most likely scenario. If the DRC has no money for its defenses; it has no money for compensation. Therefore it may be restoration of PR13359 and the right to mine.
Cheers
F
Edit: This post assumes that the DRC is unable/unwilling to pay ICSID arbitration fees. At this stage the reason for suspension of proceedings is not public, and could indeed be something quite different.
Last edited:
Retrobyte
Hates a beer
Maybe that's why Deboss quit
Mr_Tones83
Regular
This guy is full of
, paid by Cominiere/Zijin to spread lies and misinformation. He never produces any facts, only conjecture.Unfortunately, the reason for the suspension of the ICSID proceedings in ARB 23/20 is not publicly disclosed.
However, contrary to the post on X.com, the $US20m in escrow was not available for funding arbitrations, and nor could it be used as security for funding because it belongs to Cong until all this mess is sorted.
Cheers
F
Cumquat Cap
Regular
Definitely ignore anything that fucker says, the term advances pertains to the fact that the DRC have not yet paid their share and ICSID has asked us to make an advance on that which would be refunded upon judgement imo.
I suspect they think we’re about to go broke and hence stopped paying ICSID, could be some strategy there.
Where the FUCK are Locke Nigel you absolute wanker
Silly ? maybe, but given the corrupt practices of the Chinese through this entire s..t show to take control of 13359, then why wouldn't the Chinese overlords simply just provide coin to the DRC defence if it assists in keeping AVZ on the ropes?
That's a very good question.
My scenario was based on the DRC not paying its dues, which is the sort of trick those corrupt pricks would pull. It's what they do. It's in their DNA.
However, suspension may be for an entirely different reason...maybe the DRC has thrown a curve-ball of some sort, or AVZ missed a progress payment, or negotiations are taking place on the sidelines. I just don't know, but I am hopeful negotiations are taking place.
Unfortunately, I am in an information vacuum just like everyone else, and would like clarification from management just like everyone else.
Cheers
F
Last edited:
Because instead of keeping us on the ropes, I assume they think they can deliver a knockout blow and terminate the ICSID proceedings if we dont have the funds to cover both sides' payment, after which we can just be ignored. And even if we do cobble together the money to continue the proceedings it's one step closer to exhausting our financial resources and forcing us into administration. After which they can also ignore us.
Seems likely that this is just another part of their existing strategy to bleed us into financial submission.
Locke litigation funding becoming ever more important IMO.
Good points flight, especially if they were in some sort of negotiations (I'm not saying they are as i'm just a pleb here like everyone else) but i'm not ready to throw either DEBOSS (who i once meet a few years ago at a melb m&g) or Geo under the bus at this stage, as i'm sure they are
% for SH, where as NF seems to show way less rgd for those that have significant investment tied up in AVZ, who have allowed him to stay in his lucrative role & trusted him with the responsibility to look out for their interests with integrity.I like the fact however that his (NF) balls are also on the line with the rest of us, with his 51mil ps and generous remuneration or not.
Regarding the speculation of why Deboss has stood down so early in his role as SH advocate, I'd rather ask him at the agm (if i attend), which as he says he will be in attendance than jump to conclusions here as many are.
I'm presently o/b WA, if it's convenient for me I will attend the AGM. Hopefully NF has got the message.... we SH (who own a fair chunk of this company) expect ? to be asked and answered.
This isn't
!!!!!
Last edited:
AVZ need to pay Locke $200k if Locke walks .
Would this show up in the Annual / Quarterly report if Locke has walked . Conversely if it doesn't show up does it tell us Locke are still in the game ?
Could one of these reasons be why the Reports are slow coming . Just a thought .
Could it also be Locke have ok'd the funds , but AVZ are yet to lock on pending results of 'exciting development behind the scenes ?' Locke securing a
$1 mil break free from AVZ for their effort .
Something smells imminent .
Would this show up in the Annual / Quarterly report if Locke has walked . Conversely if it doesn't show up does it tell us Locke are still in the game ?
Could one of these reasons be why the Reports are slow coming . Just a thought .
Could it also be Locke have ok'd the funds , but AVZ are yet to lock on pending results of 'exciting development behind the scenes ?' Locke securing a
$1 mil break free from AVZ for their effort .
Something smells imminent .
Last edited:
oxxa23
Regular
the fact we haven't had serious contacts re raising cash is a sign to me that locke are still in it... even "if" a deal was close, i dont think management would hold a dire cash position on the chance of DRC honouring a deal... they'd want some access to back-up cash... or should, based on DRC form to date.
Similar threads
