Frank
Top 20
Fyi, Did you see this BS on X
View attachment 84324
View attachment 84325
View attachment 84327
View attachment 84326
Fyi, Did you see this BS on X
Looks like you did
Last edited:
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Fyi, Did you see this BS on X
Looks like you did
Spikerama
Regular
For the record $12….$12….$12!!! is not a meme
It is (and always has been) from it’s inception a genuine “anchoring strategy” within the realm of social media in the potential negotiation of a sale price/value of AVZ shares and any possible influence that might have on actual players and events in the real market.
Yes used from time to time with a level of humour but always the intent was deadly fucking serious
Get it in your heads everyone……everyone…..
$12….$12….$12!!!
$12!!!!!!!!
umm….$US
I guess what I meant was that is has become a meme. Even though, from what I remember there were actually some serious calculations that ended up at $12.00 per share if you rounded down.
Can't remember if it was your calcs or someone else's Wino. Why don't you remind us again.
$12….$12….$12!!!
USD
Not sure on the handle questionFor the record $12….$12….$12!!! is not a meme
It is (and always has been) from it’s inception a genuine “anchoring strategy” within the realm of social media in the potential negotiation of a sale price/value of AVZ shares and any possible influence that might have on actual players and events in the real market.
Yes used from time to time with a level of humour but always the intent was deadly fucking serious
Get it in your heads everyone……everyone…..
$12….$12….$12!!!
$12!!!!!!!!
umm….$US
Wino and I have both been seriously promoting this price for years.
A few days ago, I gave figures to justify it.
Those figures were conservative for many reasons.
PS mate, do you need to change your handle, or are you leaving all options open?
Winenut
I like wine
Could have been Steaknut I like steak
Could have been Garfishnut I like Garfish
Could have been Cashewnutnut I like Cashew Nuts
Why would I need to change?
Or have i completely misunderstood your post
Last edited:
Small Trader
Emerged
As a long-standing holder, I share the optimism and would of course be happy to be able to draw a line under this soon.
However, I am sceptical about the arguments that are now often cited that other bidders could sweeten our exit or significantly increase earnings per share.
There is no explicit rule in the deal that only allows American bidders. However, the information shows that the US has a strong interest in bringing an American company like Kobold on board. This is due to the geopolitical strategy of limiting China's influence in the DRC's extractive sector. The US government actively promotes such investments, for example through the International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC), which secures US projects in the DRC. This suggests that Kobold has been selected as the preferred bidder - not because others are excluded, but because it is a strategic fit.
Kobold Metals is definitely part of the deal. The framework agreement with AVZ is a central part of the implementation of this agreement between the US and the DRC. Kobold's CEO, Benjamin Katabuka, has emphasised that the investment in Manono is being made with the support of the US government, which underlines the link between Kobold and the US strategic agenda.
Of course, the VEA, China or sonswer could also bid, but then we would be back where we have been for the last few years: we need ICSID arbitration to be able to dispose of our property for a deal of a different kind. Because this is currently disputed from the DRC's point of view.
So there is either a deal with Kobold (however high/low the price of compensation will be) or the ICSID proceedings will continue.
Only once this has been finalised could a deal with another bidder become a reality.
Right?
However, I am sceptical about the arguments that are now often cited that other bidders could sweeten our exit or significantly increase earnings per share.
There is no explicit rule in the deal that only allows American bidders. However, the information shows that the US has a strong interest in bringing an American company like Kobold on board. This is due to the geopolitical strategy of limiting China's influence in the DRC's extractive sector. The US government actively promotes such investments, for example through the International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC), which secures US projects in the DRC. This suggests that Kobold has been selected as the preferred bidder - not because others are excluded, but because it is a strategic fit.
Kobold Metals is definitely part of the deal. The framework agreement with AVZ is a central part of the implementation of this agreement between the US and the DRC. Kobold's CEO, Benjamin Katabuka, has emphasised that the investment in Manono is being made with the support of the US government, which underlines the link between Kobold and the US strategic agenda.
Of course, the VEA, China or sonswer could also bid, but then we would be back where we have been for the last few years: we need ICSID arbitration to be able to dispose of our property for a deal of a different kind. Because this is currently disputed from the DRC's point of view.
So there is either a deal with Kobold (however high/low the price of compensation will be) or the ICSID proceedings will continue.
Only once this has been finalised could a deal with another bidder become a reality.
Right?
Spikerama
Regular
I think he means Maj.
This Maja and the other downrampers of a sell price actually remind me of this carrot dick guy and his gang... I mean, manipulation of opinions is not a Chinese invention, after all. Who knows in which boat they are actually sitting...
lellep
Regular
Last edited:
I haven't logged in since years because of BS like yours. Whatever, put me on ignore.Another Emerged poster, welcome to TSE!
lellep
Regular
If your intent is good, welcome back!
Perhaps you can understand my suspicioun from my point of view?
Lots of new emerged posters spreading misinformation and trying to create discord!
And how does that reconcile with the US claiming they can only get involved if all the bullshit and shenanigans stops? By starting from a foundation of bullshit shenanigans? That's why the ONLY way this works is for AVZ to AGREE. That's what's in Nigel's statement, and that's what's got to happen.
Trump is already breaking global alliances and global economies. What do you think is going to happen to trust in the US and the entire global trade system it underpins if news comes out that they did a dodgy deal with a corrupt government to steal a project from an ALLY. It would shatter what last little bit of trust remained that the US was a country people could trust to do business with.
Not a chance. Not even with Trump.
This thing doesn't happen without AVZ being on board and that doesnt happen without a deal that's substantially better than our prospects with CATH.
There is a win-win-win situation on the table here if the US and DRC aren't too arrogant to take it.
TheGermanOne
Member
Rechnerhand
Regular
LOCKY82
Regular
Ai summary
Let's break down this statement:
* "The Tribunal issues a decision...": This means that a formal panel or body (the Tribunal) has made an official ruling. Tribunals are often set up to resolve specific types of disputes.
* "...on the Respondent’s request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question...":
* The Respondent is the party against whom a claim or dispute has been brought.
* The objections to jurisdiction are arguments made by the Respondent that the Tribunal does not have the authority or legal power to hear the case.
* To address these objections as a preliminary question means the Respondent wanted the Tribunal to decide whether it even had the right to hear the case before getting into the details of the actual dispute ("the merits").
* "...as a result, the objections to jurisdiction are joined to the merits of the dispute.":
* Joined to the merits means that instead of deciding on the jurisdictional objections first, the Tribunal has decided to consider the objections at the same time as it considers the substance or core issues of the dispute ("the merits").
In simpler terms:
The party being sued (the Respondent) asked the Tribunal to first decide if the Tribunal even had the authority to hear the case. The Tribunal said "no" to this request. Instead, they will deal with the question of their authority at the same time as they consider the actual arguments of the dispute.
Essentially, the Tribunal has decided not to resolve the "can we even hear this case?" question upfront, but to consider it alongside the "what actually happened?" question.
Do you have any other parts of this statement you'd like me to clarify?
Let's break down this statement:
* "The Tribunal issues a decision...": This means that a formal panel or body (the Tribunal) has made an official ruling. Tribunals are often set up to resolve specific types of disputes.
* "...on the Respondent’s request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question...":
* The Respondent is the party against whom a claim or dispute has been brought.
* The objections to jurisdiction are arguments made by the Respondent that the Tribunal does not have the authority or legal power to hear the case.
* To address these objections as a preliminary question means the Respondent wanted the Tribunal to decide whether it even had the right to hear the case before getting into the details of the actual dispute ("the merits").
* "...as a result, the objections to jurisdiction are joined to the merits of the dispute.":
* Joined to the merits means that instead of deciding on the jurisdictional objections first, the Tribunal has decided to consider the objections at the same time as it considers the substance or core issues of the dispute ("the merits").
In simpler terms:
The party being sued (the Respondent) asked the Tribunal to first decide if the Tribunal even had the authority to hear the case. The Tribunal said "no" to this request. Instead, they will deal with the question of their authority at the same time as they consider the actual arguments of the dispute.
Essentially, the Tribunal has decided not to resolve the "can we even hear this case?" question upfront, but to consider it alongside the "what actually happened?" question.
Do you have any other parts of this statement you'd like me to clarify?
Its kind of strange because if they did not have the authority to hear the case why are they hearing the case? More importantly why has the DRC asked the question as it gives authority and legitimacy to the ICSID,
Retrobyte
Hates a beer
Because that's how courts work. If there is a jurisdictional issue it is up to the other party to submit their arguments and for the court to rule. I have one of those I'm running tomorrow in the IRC
Carlos Danger
Top 20
Exact same thing happened in the ICC case vs Cominiere. It's a delaying tactic. The ICSID will have ruled that they prima facie have jurisdiction because THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY FUCKING NAMED IN THE DRC MINING CODE LMFAO
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5934d2ae6b8f5beeb5ba23f3/t/67d3bd288dbce72fde15904f/1741929783803/20250310+27720+SVE+-+Copie+de+Courtoisie+de+la+Sentence+Partielle_en.pdf
818. The Defendant has not given a convincing explanation to question 9 of the Arbitral Tribunal, asking whether the Kalemie High Court should have taken into account the existence of the arbitration clause in the Amended JV Contract and declared itself incompetent to deal with certain issues, including the contract for the termination of the Amended JV Contract .
819. Indeed, the Defendant never explained on what legal basis the Kalemie High Court had based its jurisdiction, but only asserted that it "had jurisdiction to establish this termination and draw the consequences thereof" and "must be accepted by this Court and by the Parties.
820. As they had not been summoned, the Claimants were unable to invoke the lack of jurisdiction of the Kalemie High Court due to the arbitration clause contained in article 11 of the Amended JV Contract which, according to them, would have led the Kalemie High Court to declare itself lacking jurisdiction'.
821. The Arbitral Tribunal is astonished by the fact that the High Court of Kalemie found that a contract had been terminated without the other parties to the contract being heard or summoned to express their position.
822. In fact, the Defendant summoned CAMI, which is not a party to the Amended JV Contract, before the High Court of Kalemie and not AVZI and Dathcom.
823. The Defendant argued that CAMI was the "sole defendant in the proceedings, in the presence of the Public Prosecutor". It did not answer the question of whether the other parties to the contract were required under Congolese law to be heard or summoned, but stated that the Arbitral Tribunal does not have to rule either on the jurisdiction of the TGI of Kalemie, or on the merits of the grounds for this decision.
824. However, in the present award, the Arbitral Tribunal must rule on the emergency measures ordered by the Emergency Arbitrator and take into account the actions of the Parties in the context of these proceedings.
825. The Arbitral Tribunal does not rule on the merits of the dispute, so its award does not have the same purpose or basis as the judgment of the Kalemie High Court. In fact, it does not even concern the same parties, since only Cominière and CAMI were parties to the Congolese proceedings, even though the rights of AVZI, Dathcom and GLH are directly affected by this judgment.
826. The Arbitral Tribunal will not decide in this Partial Award whether the Defendant's obtaining of the Kalemie TGI Judgment constitutes "fraud" as raised by the Claimants in their Mémoire en Duplique of April 2, 2024, paras. 88 to 91 and at hearing of April 3, 2024 364 since this is a question of substance, noting in passing that this argument was raised only the day before the hearing of April 3, 2024'.
827. This question can be left open at this stage, as the Arbitral Tribunal can only observe, and this is not disputed by the Defendant, that the Judgment of the Kalemie High Court was not rendered in a manner that respected the adversarial process or the arbitration clause contained in article 11.1 of the Amended JV Contract.
828. The Arbitral Tribunal therefore rejects the Defendant's argument that this Judgment would deprive the Order of May 5, 2024 of any effect and that the emergency measures contained therein should be lifted.
829. This Judgment of the Kalemie High Court cannot therefore be invoked as an obstacle to the emergency , and each violation invoked by the Claimants in their Request for partial liquidation of the penalty payments must be examined in the light of all the circumstances of case. Admissibility and admissibility under Congolese law of the Claimants' submissions
830. With regard to the admissibility of the Claimants' submissions, the Arbitral Tribunal notes that the Claimants' main request in their Statement of Claim on the merits is that the Arbitral Tribunal declare the termination of the Amended JV Contract null and void and allow contractual relations to continue.
831. The questions whether these submissions made by the Claimants are admissible or admissible under Congolese law are questions of admissibility and substance which the Arbitral Tribunal will decide in these proceedings when it issues its Final Award but which, in the limited context of the decisions made in this Partial Award, do not need to be decided.
832. It should also be emphasized that the decisions of the Arbitral Tribunal in this Partial Award are without prejudice to future decisions of the Arbitral Tribunal in its Final Award on questions of admissibility and/or admission of claims on the merits.
833. At this stage, however, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot rule out the possibility that the Claimants' conclusions, in particular in execution of the Amended IV Contract, will subsequently be admitted in the Final Award. The criterion of risk of irreparable harm therefore exists in this respect at the date of issue this Partial Award.
834. Accordingly, the Arbitral Tribunal concludes that the risk of irreparable harm criterion is still met at the date of issuance this Partial Award and rejects this second objection by the Defendant
Xerof
Is There Anybody Out There 1979
@Carlos Danger
Bang on as usual.
So this seems to clear the way for the hearing in19 18 days time, (unless AVZ temporarily suspend to enable meaningful discussions with DRC)
If we are still on track for that, it's advantage Nigel once again
TIME Pink Floyd 173
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an off-hand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way
Bang on as usual.
So this seems to clear the way for the hearing in
If we are still on track for that, it's advantage Nigel once again
TIME Pink Floyd 173
Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an off-hand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way
Xerof
Is There Anybody Out There 1979
And an AVZ capI thought $10 was the anchoring price and $12 was the meme price with the f@#$ Zinjin bonus?
Not that I can be bothered going back 2167 pages to confirm.
Similar threads
