AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Oh dear, now there is a name I have not missed!!
cruiser51
Top 20
I reckon that was fake from china, or Kabila.
I don't believe all the garbage coming from Kinshasa, there are lots full of shit.
I understand that the $8 billion seizure was just a fantasy story...just like pretty much anything originating from the DRC.
But what isn't fantasy is that AVZ is in its best position for two years, and I am hopeful that all the co-dependencies can be aligned and a deal done.
Cheers
F
Last edited:
Frank
Top 20
Carlos Danger
Top 20
August is correct that the ICSID can’t compel the DRC to act
And he’s right that the original PE13359 was revoked (By the MoM using reasons unknown to the mining code)
But he’s wrong that it can’t be reactivated in the partial award it was originally given (that's the entire point of the appeal system in the DRC mining code that led to the ICSID) or granted in full if the waiver isn’t enforced imo
AVZ maintains that Dathcom is the holder of PR 13359 in respect of the entire Manono Project (including the northern area) and the applicant for an exploitation licence (PE) in respect of that land.
AVZ has taken advice and is confident of its position. The purpose of the ICSID proceedings which were commenced by AVZ on 8 May 2023 and registered on 8 June 2023 is to authoritatively establish this.
The Interim Orders are as follows, the DRC shall:
• re-establish Dathcom as holder of PR 13359, currently being converted into an operating permit, on the perimeter mentioned in article 2 of ministerial order no. 0921/CAB.MIN/MINES/01/2016 of December 28, 2016, but excluding the perimeter covered by PR 15775;
• instruct Cadastre minier de la RDC (CAMI) to rectify the mining fallout map to reflect Dathcom's ownership of PR 13359 on a perimeter excluding the perimeter covered by PR 15775, specifying that this permit is in the process of being transformed into an operating permit and remains valid;
The Interim Orders are binding on all parties and take effect immediately but may be revised (or revoked) by the ICSID tribunal in light of any comments provided by AVZI, GLH and Dathcom and the State. The mandatory nature of the Interim Orders was reconfirmed and highlighted by the ICSID tribunal in its decision.
Among other directions, the ICSID tribunal has asked that Dathcom expressly confirm that should the DRC comply with these interim orders, AVZI, GLH and Dathcom will request the release of the PE and if the DRC releases it, they will progress the development of the project immediately. The Company will take the necessary steps to procure that AVZI, GLH and Dathcom provide that confirmation.
If this is the case you better tell AVZ and ICC arbitration lawyers who must have forgotten the memo…. Isn’t the whole ICSID case on this very fact? The ownership of 13559 is and always was AVZ and the interim orders were to restore that back to AVZ?
Or am I wrong in that? That these hot shot international lawyers have completely missed the point August alleges?
Haha. Apologies didn’t see this post but it goes to answering my previous post!
I assume he’s wrong and scaremongering or just wrong.
Xerof
Flaming 1967
@Carlos Danger
Mate, I was thinking of asking for a rebuttal to Cohens assertions from our resident 'i'm no commercial lawyer but...'
thanks mate, those were my thoughts as well. He has not read fully the ICSID emergency findings
Interesting to see Jens agrees 100% with August
Mate, I was thinking of asking for a rebuttal to Cohens assertions from our resident 'i'm no commercial lawyer but...'
thanks mate, those were my thoughts as well. He has not read fully the ICSID emergency findings
Interesting to see Jens agrees 100% with August
Frank
Top 20
August is correct that the ICSID can’t compel the DRC to act
And he’s right that the original PE13359 was revoked (By the MoM using reasons unknown to the mining code)
But he’s wrong that it can’t be reactivated in the partial award it was originally given (that's the entire point of the appeal system in the DRC mining code that led to the ICSID) or granted in full if the waiver isn’t enforced imo
AVZ vs DRC @ ICSID - Final Countdown
Countdown to the ICSID tribunal of AVZ vs DRC (Congolese).
avz-icsid-final-countdown.netlify.app
Last edited:
Re:
The central issue is that the decree issuing Dathcom an exploitation licence was illegally rescinded. There is no provision in the Mining Code to rescind a licence because of disharmony amongst stakeholders. At the same time AVZ was meeting all its contractual obligations, and making good progress towards building a mine and production facilities. This cannot be denied.
However,
The central issue is that the decree issuing Dathcom an exploitation licence was illegally rescinded. There is no provision in the Mining Code to rescind a licence because of disharmony amongst stakeholders. At the same time AVZ was meeting all its contractual obligations, and making good progress towards building a mine and production facilities. This cannot be denied.
However,
- Cominiere's corrupt dissolution of the Dathcom JV in April 2023, was illegal
- Cominier's sale of 15% of Dathcom to Zijin Mining was corrupt and therefore illegal
- Cominiere's sale price ($US33.4m) was just 24% of market price ($US140m) due to bribery and corruption
- Cominiere corruptly diverted $US6m of Zijin's $US33.4m payment to commissions, expenses and snacks
- Cominiere's decision, in conjunction with CAMI to wind up Dathcom and return PR13359 to its own name was corrupt
- Kalemie High Court's decision to uphold Cominiere's behavior, but denying AVZ the opportunity to defend or be heard was corrupt
- Cominiere's decision to split PR13359 into PR13359 (S) and PR15775 (N), and subsequent JV with Zijin Mining are illegal
- Cominiere's decision to award Jinjiang Lithium, a subsidiary of Zijin Mining, 61% of the northern part (PR15775) of Manono was corrupt
- The $US70m payment for PR15775 went corruptly to the DRC president's 'favourite charity' instead of to going to treasury
- Zijin is building a mine on PR15775 without completing the mandatory drilling and confirmations, again through bribery.
Last edited:
Frank
Top 20
@Carlos Danger
Mate, I was thinking of asking for a rebuttal to Cohens assertions from our resident 'i'm no commercial lawyer but...'
thanks mate, those were my thoughts as well. He has not read fully the ICSID emergency findings
Interesting to see Jens agrees 100% with August
cruiser51
Top 20
Cami doesn't seem to understand that 13359 can't be re-issued, they registered it as an exploration permit issued to cominiere, according to the Cami map.
I'm not a legal person, but why is Cami so confused?
Yeah i think maybe Iam missing something but as far as iam aware PE 13559 was NOT legally extinguished by the minister which completely invaladates what August is saying.
Similar threads
