yaseenmeoncebefore
Emerged
Carlos, I agree that the SPA's were completed. However, I think the issue is that Cong was using the corrupt DRC legal system to try to reverse the agreements and whether this attempt/dispute needed to be disclosed.
I also agree with you that as contracts should work, AVZ likely did complete the required steps.
ASIC are stating that AVZ had not completed the acquisition:
and there was a decision that went against us in the High Court of Lubumbashi:
If court rulings/decisions to take a portion of our asset off us and destroy share certificates are made in the DRC, is this not material? If a court ruling goes against us in the DRC where our only asset is, then I think AVZ may have a very hard time arguing that it is just media speculation/spurious/immaterial.
I know that:
- the High Court of Lubumbashi should not have jurisdiction
- Cong likely bribed the judge
- they don't follow the rule of law
-AVZ did everything required to complete the SPA's
but these thieves attempting to illegally take the asset (or a portion of it) off us and disputing transactions, obtaining rulings in the corrupt DRC legal system, destroying share certificates etc, is still material. Would you not think that ASIC would have a strong case that these dispute/s were material and should have been disclosed?
The whole plan to steal the asset off us by the DRC Government/CAMI/Cominiere/Zijin/Cong is completely illegal. However, the result is that AVZ simply cannot mine Manono. The result is that AVZ loses billions $$$. So regardless of whether it is illegal or not, whether this is how contracts should work or not, it is and was very, very material.
I realise the ICC upheld AVZ's position. In your view, is the detail that will save us, the fact that the joint venture agreement required disputes to go to ICC to be resolved and therefore the High Court of Lubumbashi never had jurisdiction? Can it therefore simply be ignored and not disclosed?
I am going back and forth with this a bit.
- AVZ completed the required steps
- DRC court did not have jurisdiction
- ICC upheld AVZ's position
However, there are still a lot of things in here that I think shareholders would have certainly liked to know at the time. Do you think ASIC have a any case that some of these items should have been disclosed?
I really despise those who have ripped us off. My hope is that AVZ can still sell the asset in the near term.
Last edited:
