AVZ Discussion 2022

[Shire]

The Equities Club malakas got called out and had to re-write their story.

We are definitely in the endgame now if this unheard of practice has just happened
View attachment 79993 .

That’s great. I was starting to get a bit (a lot) pissed off. Way too much inference from Equities Club in that story. The way they were suggesting it could’ve played out is that AVZ would’ve had a claim against KoBold in the future if successful at arbitration of $10B. Which isn’t unprecedented in terms of future owner compensating previous owner, but not at all what the other information had suggested about the deal.

 

[Mr Inappropriate]

The Equities Club malakas got called out and had to re-write their story.

We are definitely in the endgame now if this unheard of practice has just happened
View attachment 79993 .

Full credit to them for acknowledging the mistake and taking prompt action.

 

[j.l]

Full credit to them for acknowledging the mistake and taking prompt action.

And full credit to our team for staying across all the media and calling out the falsehoods and chicanery!

 

[BRICK]

The Equities Club malakas got called out and had to re-write their story.

We are definitely in the endgame now if this unheard of practice has just happened
View attachment 79993 .

Next Apology I want is from Tommy the terrible twitching turd tossing twat

 

[Carlos Danger]

New calc

$10b USD - no tax = $10b USD

$10b USD x 1.6 (USDAUD) = $16b AUD

$16b AUD / 3.5b SOI = $4.57 AUD

$4.57 AUD x 4.2352 (verified and confirmed shit fucker premium) x 0.62 (convert back to USD) = USD $12...$12....$12!!!

Apologies to @Spikerama for quoting a price target

I'll add the 4.2352 premium to my equation when you add the missing U to your flow chart

u U U U U

 

[Pokok]

New calc

$10b USD - no tax = $10b USD

$10b USD x 1.6 (USDAUD) = $16b AUD

$16b AUD / 3.5b SOI = $4.57 AUD

$4.57 AUD x 4.2352 (verified and confirmed shit fucker premium) x 0.62 (convert back to USD) = USD $12...$12....$12!!!

Apologies to @Spikerama for quoting a price target

I still enjoy your calculations

 

[Winenut]

I'll add the 4.2352 premium to my equation when you add the missing U to your flow chart

u U U U U

View attachment 79994

Your wish is clearly my command.....

 

[hedrox]

Where is the new Equities Club report ???

 

[Winenut]

New calc

$10b USD - no tax = $10b USD

$10b USD x 1.6 (USDAUD) = $16b AUD

$16b AUD / 3.5b SOI = $4.57 AUD

$4.57 AUD x 4.2352 (verified and confirmed shit fucker premium) x 0.62 (convert back to USD) = USD $12...$12....$12!!!

Apologies to @Spikerama for quoting a price target

Go on....

$4.57 AUD x 4.2352 (verified and confirmed shit fucker premium) x 0.62 (convert back to USD) = USD $12...$12....$12!!!

Who whipped out their calculator and checked it????

Be honest....

 

[Spikerama]

Go on....

$4.57 AUD x 4.2352 (verified and confirmed shit fucker premium) x 0.62 (convert back to USD) = USD $12...$12....$12!!!

Who whipped out their calculator and checked it????

Be honest....

Who do you think you are Wino? Rachel Riley?

 

[Carlos Danger]

@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?

For Jin Cheng I think it is because the substantive question of whether AVZ's FROR was violated is yet to be determined

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.

 

[Winenut]

Who do you think you are Wino? Rachel Riley?

You didn't answer the question....

 

[Dave Evans]

For Jin Cheng I think it is because the substantive question of whether AVZ's FROR was violated is yet to be determined

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.

Carlos do you remember @9cardomaha saying something along the lines of the ICSID being able to seize any royalties Zijin would pay to the DRC once they were in production?

 

[robface]

Carlos do you remember @9cardomaha saying something along the lines of the ICSID being able to seize any royalties Zijin would pay to the DRC once they were in production?

Why would they need to wait until Manono lithium to be in production when Zijin has established mines in the DRC already?

And ICC fines for Zijin as ICSID respondents are DRC?

Apologies if I've got my cases mixed up.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Carlos do you remember @9cardomaha saying something along the lines of the ICSID being able to seize any royalties Zijin would pay to the DRC once they were in production?

If you have assets and no dry powder, what do banks do to lend you money?

If Cominiere don't pay securitization, the entire case goes in favour of AVZ?

On top of this, lithium produced could be legally ambiguous and many international companies may not consider dealing with them - not 100% conflict minerals of course, but along those lines, it makes their production and distribution very narrow.

I'm sure 20m securitization would be paid for by Zijin in anycase. then try and delay the verdicts.... This saves face, makes the timeline longer etc etc.

15775 has dividend payment to Cominiere in the JV, advance funds etc. If Z doesn;t pay them, could also turn them back to us.

I'd suggest doing your own research and coming to some conclusions. But funding and obtaining damages is pretty standard - also getting the new partners to foot the bill is super common for those snack munchers.

Taking a step back, we have ongoing cases against them so non-payment on emergency rulings will look poorly on them - so logically they can't just do a runner.

If they do a runner*, because lets face it they probably don't care about ICC cases and its just to drain our funds - I've mentioned before that ICC and ICSID have the power to intercept payments from most international banks and institutions. DLA just need to raise this point to the courts - and wouldn't you know it, if you don't pay according to ICC and ICSID, they don't really favour you going forward.

*This is a possibility for sure.... Refusing to pay is classic DRC, playing the victim, crying poor etc. but there is precedence for intercepting payments which is easy to argue.

For the way payments work, if the damages amount is high, they will draft the payment scheme. If its payment to the Arbitrator and legal teams, its a lump sum immediately, but won't go through AVZ, payable directly to DLA and ICC/ICSID.

We can even ask the courts to force securitization at the next hearings which puts a portion of the payable amount into escrow and will be paid upon a verdict. I'd say with the penalty ticking up to 100mil, we could ask for 20mil as security without much issue - then just work on the verdict and 20mil instant in the bank with the following 80mil that we have to chase up.

Obviously leaving it to DLA and BOD to decide, but that's my takeaway, and why i'm cool as a cucumber.

DYOR.

First domino to fall is now looking like the increased emergency injunction, which conveninently is 24th Nov. Cominiere managed to delay submissions to 9th of November... + 15 days, whoops missed the AGM.

They didn't even do anything particularly clever, just copped the late submission fine of a few thousand euros - paid for by Z. But at least it gives a bad impression for the arbitrator who was already favouring AVZ.

DLA Piper earning their keep, and doubling down on the favourable ruling for 50k penalty - in the modified injunction are things like rolling back 15775, verdict on hydro and increasing penalty to 150k as i've mentioned. Everyone worried about enforcement needs to understand how injunctions with penalties work.....

The injunction is provisional and will continue to count upward until AVZ decides to go before a tribunal to enforce. Once it is enforced, the counter stops and we are paid whatever sum we are owed, along with any verdicts which are stipulated in the injunction. ICC has a very high enforcement rate for injunctions and only under extreme circumstances does an injunction not get enforced when it goes to tribunal.

As for monetary fines, these are placed on Cominiere but ICC's jurisdiction gives it power over all major international financial institutions. So Z wants to pay money to C.... it'll get flagged and paid to AVZ until the fines are all paid off. So the money is going to come our way regardless... not optimal but could be fucking worse.

On ownership rights, ICC are a little weaker, the judgements need to be taken back to local DRC courts for enforcement.... this is a pretty big issue because i don't think anyone here trusts the DRC judicial system. But silver lining is, if DRC local courts refuse to enforce, we have grounds to recalculate to monetary damages, and the ICC can just continue adding to the monetary penalty. Again, not optimal but better than nothing.

My assumption is that if we can get the monetary penalty high enough upon enforcement, then Cominiere can't pay and Z doesn't want to foot the bill, then we can negotiate something.

On another note, we submitted an emergency request to have the 15% ICC case withdrawn. Z has managed to delay that to early decemember

So this is where it gets a little tricky - ICC's power over DRC land transfer and ownership rights is 50/50 from what i can tell. But that is up to the arbitrator, if they do not believe the DRC will follow through, then they pretty weak from what i can tell, but ICC and ICSID for that matter will generally rule for monetary damages as remedy.


this relates to my enforcement showerthought. They aren;t losses unless you sell type of deal, until we request to enforce the emergency injunction.

And for monetary penalties, ICC has jurisdiction over 90% of banking institutions, and can block or hold transactions from ZJ to Cominiere, or any other organiztion to Cominiere to recoup damages.

These are the main posts when 9card explained the ICC enforcement process

Basically ICC has power to seize any payments through banking institutions made to Cominiere including within Manono Lithium from Zijin

Either that or Zijin will just pay up on Cominiere's behalf to avoid sanctions against their product in western markets

 

[Frank]

https://x.com/anonymous_seeu/status/1903607502216077409

 

[Frank]

https://x.com/brendo726/status/1903524950448963963

 

[ptlas]

Go on....

$4.57 AUD x 4.2352 (verified and confirmed shit fucker premium) x 0.62 (convert back to USD) = USD $12...$12....$12!!!

Who whipped out their calculator and checked it????

Be honest....

I think that you're going to need to factor in the ( probably ) rising lithium price over the next months. Hopefully, not years.

As a few have said, and I've banged on about, probably incessantly, do not talk the price down and do not let it be dictated by outside parties.
It is a sign of weakness, and this is now as much about psychology as anything else.

@wombat74
I would differentiate between FT / DRC elites' interests and those of the DRC.
He / they have proven over many years that they don't GAF.
Rebels in the East or any other issues are secondary to them staying out of gaol ( almost a given ), stayng in power and continuing to collect those parcels that one pays 25c for in Woolies.

The Chinese will also be up to their old tricks.
When one considers how few of their shitty actions over the last few years were predicted, it inevitably means that there are more twists and turns coming.

Consequently, FT's actions are totally unpredictable.
He will act out of self-interest. Whatever that is.

 

[Mute22]

Thanks Carlos, I’ve actually got some information I wasn’t going to share with anyone but I owe you a token of gratitude so here’s what I found out

Celestin Kibeya was seen phoning the Ministry of Mines shortly after taking Zijin’s bribe and walking out of Zijin’s office with the $2 million

Until now the photographer kept the photo confidential but finally decided to release it this morning


View attachment 80007

This may be construed the wrong way...

 

[Carlos Danger]

Why would they need to wait until Manono lithium to be in production when Zijin has established mines in the DRC already?

And ICC fines for Zijin as ICSID respondents are DRC?

Apologies if I've got my cases mixed up.

These are the main posts when 9card explained the ICC enforcement process

Basically ICC has power to seize any payments through banking institutions made to Cominiere including within Manono Lithium from Zijin

Either that or Zijin will just pay up on Cominiere's behalf to avoid sanctions against their product in western markets

View attachment 79996
View attachment 79999
View attachment 79998
View attachment 79997

The partial award at the ICC was against Cominiere. The award is due to the ICC initially not us.

Therefore for this particular award the ICC can only recoup from Cominiere before paying to AVZ through the lawyers

It doesn't have to be money paid from profits in production with Zijin it can be any money paid to Cominiere by anyone that the ICC will be able to intercept