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...
I dont think they are downrampers. I think they have A LOT of shares bought at a very very low price and have grown weary of holding onto them and are looking to cash out. Its a difference of opinion short term vs long term. I didnt expect to be locked up this long either but I still want the value of the asset.
So if the price isnt right, domicile AVZ in the US, or do what EUR did and get bought by a SPAC. I still don't get why you feel this is our only out, its not. It might be our best way forward but until the details are out, I am not waiving pom poms for any outcome.
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.
Agree to the framework, which is nonbinding... if Kobold can get everyone to agree to a deal at a fair price for AVZ - thats the best outcome for us. If Kobold can get everyone to agree to a deal but wont offer a fair price - thats the second best outcome, we say no thank you, the value for SH is too low and we continue legal cases and maybe kobold offer more or another partner emerges, G7 investment comes in (which I liked the article yesterday its on their Radar US are just first off the rung with there investment) or we win legal cases get ML issued and mine it ourselves like we intended to 3 years ago (we probably suffer some dilution) but in that case Kobold would have set a precedent on a way forward for us (we know what the conditions are the Gov would accept).
What would be the worst outcome for us if even with Kobold leveraging, they could not get everyone to agree to terms.
I 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.
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?
Great — here’s how joining jurisdiction with the merits can affect the case timeline and strategy:
1. Timeline Impact
Longer process: Because the Tribunal won’t decide right away whether it even has the authority to hear the case, the proceedings will move forward into the full dispute phase. This adds time and cost for both sides.
No early dismissal: If the Tribunal had ruled on jurisdiction first and found it had no authority, the case could have ended early. Now, the parties must go through the entire case before knowing if the Tribunal can even rule on it.
2. Strategic Impact
Higher legal costs: Both sides must now prepare for a full hearing, covering both jurisdiction and the actual dispute.
Leverage shifts: The Respondent (who raised the jurisdiction objection) loses a chance to stop the case early. This might give the Claimant more confidence moving forward.
More complex arguments: Lawyers must now present legal and factual arguments together, which can make the case more complicated.
In summary: the Tribunal’s decision to delay the jurisdiction question means the case is moving into full gear, which could benefit the side pushing to have their claims fully heard.
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.
Thats actually very interesting in and of itself... I remember the days when we used to just be an Asterisk on every competitor's investor presentation *AVZ omitted as an outlier.
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!
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,
The ICSID is a non starter IMO . I'm expecting Kobold to tweak their offer to get a deal done ASAP . Kobold nuppty on YouTube was almost blowing his load with excitement .
The ICSID is a non starter IMO . I'm expecting Kobold to tweak their offer to get a deal done ASAP . Kobold nuppty on YouTube was almost blowing his load with excitement .
The ICSID is a non starter IMO . I'm expecting Kobold to tweak their offer to get a deal done ASAP . Kobold nuppty on YouTube was almost blowing his load with excitement .
