Carlos Danger
Top 20
For Jin Cheng I think it is because the substantive question of whether AVZ's FROR was violated is yet to be determined@Carlos Danger and/or @9cardomaha
One matter that still irks me:
The original case to ICC concluded that Jin Cheng was not a shareholder in DATHCOM etc etc, which according to announcements they were appealing to the Paris Court of Appeal. (this despite all the evidence that they seemingly gave it up and instead gave some crook a cheque for 70m which gave them the JV on 15575. Haha, what a shitfuckery thats turning into)
I read somewhere that they have yet to file their papers, and I read somewhere else that they only have a drop dead date this month sometime to actually file.
My question is if they aren't a SH in Dathcom, how come all these other cases are still live and progressing, i.e. the fucking rejoinder to bring Cong/Kabila via Dathomir into the frame as well. Is it simply because unless, or until, their appeal is dropped or dismissed, everything continues as if the ICC finding isn't yet set in concrete?
The AVZI Successfully Defends Against Jin Cheng ICC Proceedings announcement says:
'On 15 March 2024, the ICC tribunal found in favour of AVZI, ruling that, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the status of a shareholder in Dathcom is determined by its registration in Dathcom’s internal share register and that the ICC tribunal did not have jurisdiction to preside over the proceedings commenced by Jin Cheng.'
This is backed up by the reasoning of the arbiters in last weeks ICC Partial Award Decision
'Moreover, while article 10.1 of Dathcom's Articles of Association 3.1 states that fully paid- up shares are only negotiable after the company has been registered with the RCCM, article 10.2 specifies that "Ownership of shares results from their entry an account in the name of the holder on the registers held for this purpose at the registered office.
Article 10.3 of the Bylaws also states that "The transfer is effected with regard to third parties and the Company, by the registration of the shares concerned in the share account of the acquirer in the registers held for this purpose at the registered office.
Thus, according to these provisions of Dathcom's Articles of Association, registration with the RCCM is not a condition for the validity of the transfer of shares, but it is the registration in the company's share register that is authoritative.'
The question of the FROR violation will be answered in the Cominiere ICC case so Zijin will be using that technicality to proceed with the damages case as ending it now could potentially violate their rights. Dathomir have likely been brought in to the damages case due to the fact that they have their own ongoing arbitration proceeding to determine whether they are still a shareholder of Dathcom. Spoiler alert they're not.