AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
That was my initial thinking of the documents they brought.
Typical short sweet reply from AVZ.
Xerof
Flushed the Toilet
Only issue is ASIC don’t give 2 fucks about ICC and arbitration law. They’re going the directors for non disclosure, to which I guess the directors will argue it’s immaterial as usual. Hard one.
Annoyingly, every chance ASIC has used somewhat confidential info from the ICC tribunal to compile this.
It’s impossible to know whose pulling what strings anymore.
I don't see how this could affect our ownership of Dathcom and rights to the Manono deposit but I wonder how further legal disputes may affect our funding agreement with Mr Pei.
Didn't the court agree that AVZ own 75%
Yeah the ICC did. But ASIC isn’t about ownership. They actually do, unfortunately have some valid points though.
Having said that, it is really just another attempt by someone to push the regulatory authorities to some sort of action. Slap on the wrist shit really for Nige and co.
You know all you need to know from those that published and spread the word with high fives within 30 mins of each other. Same old same old.
Carlos Danger
Top 20
I've never seen the SPA's. But I know for a fact that Article 2.1 of the SPA's and Cong's notary deeds says that this is gringo bullshit imo
the article should read "ASIC" sues the fuck out of boatman capital, the maths and congs of the world" for denying avz and its shareholders what is rightfully theirs,
yaseenmeoncebefore
Member
Carlos, I agree that AVZ completed the required steps and the SPA's were completed as confirmed by the ICC. 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.
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, are still material pieces of information. Would you not think that ASIC would have a 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.
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 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.
Edit - the more I go over the list of items the better I feel about it. Dathomir's attempts to terminate the agreements, not accept payment etc...well ICC upheld AVZ's position, so tough shit. The Lubumbashi court did not have jurisdiction. I suppose the thing that would really solidify this attempt as being spurious is if AVZ had concrete evidence of corruption here, but that might be hard to obtain. I suppose the verdict being totally at odds with the ICC goes some way to showing this. I do agree with Item l, referring to there being significant risk about further performance, however I suppose this depends on the definition of performance. If DRC do not uphold their own rule of law or perform where required by law it is not really the fault of AVZ.
Last edited:
Thanks for the detailed explanation. And I am pretty sure the board had legal opinions each time before making the decision what needs to be published.
Re: Annoyingly, every chance ASIC has used somewhat confidential info from the ICC tribunal to compile this.
I tend to agree on this important point.
In order to prepare its briefs for both ICC and ICSID, and establish a pattern of behavior by the DRC and Cong Ma, management would have compiled detailed dossiers and timelines of bureaucratic inertia, dirty tricks and corruption commencing well before 2021.
It is these detailed timelines along with the official minutes (and side notes) of board meetings that ASIC will focus on, and which may (or may not) be problematic for Nigel and Graeme.
Cheers
F
Last edited:
Carlos Danger
Top 20
The ICC is the appropriate venue for arbitration under the SPA's
When AVZ commenced arbitration at the ICC it released an announcement to market
The ICC has confirmed that completion occurred in August 2021 for the first 10% (other 5% is imminent) and that AVZ have owned the shares in Dathcom since then
ASIC are trying to argue that the dispute raised by Cong caused a 'significant risk to the performance or completion' of the SPA's but that ignores what any reasonable person whether director or not would consider completion and therefore performance attached the latter of which will be tested by the DRC Supreme Court
I've always said that AVZ management should have released updates about this dispute but unless they lose in the correct arbitration channels then they didn't have to and the garbage interpretation of performance or completion in ASICs statement of claim has not changed that view imo
Last edited:
Some interesting news this morning. MinRes and POSCO Holdings to form lithium partnership. The below is from Chat GPT pro and is likely to contain errors. Also the general concept of comparing these projects is apples to oranges but an interesting experiment anyway.
I wanted to compare the projects on a tonnage basis.
The US$765 m POSCO payment is for 30% of a new JV that will hold MinRes’s existing 50% interests in both Wodgina and Mt Marion. MinRes states this values its 50% interest at ~A$3.9 b (≈ US$2.5 b at 0.65 FX), implying a 100% underlying value of ~US$5.1 b for Wodgina + Mt Marion together.
I wanted to compare the projects on a tonnage basis.
The US$765 m POSCO payment is for 30% of a new JV that will hold MinRes’s existing 50% interests in both Wodgina and Mt Marion. MinRes states this values its 50% interest at ~A$3.9 b (≈ US$2.5 b at 0.65 FX), implying a 100% underlying value of ~US$5.1 b for Wodgina + Mt Marion together.
A) Per‑tonne of contained Li₂O
- $/t Li₂O for Wodgina + Mt Marion = US$5.1 b / 3.42 Mt ≈ US$1,491/t Li₂O.
- Apply to Manono’s 13.52 Mt Li₂O ⇒ 13.52 Mt × US$1,491/t ≈ US$20.2 b (≈ A$31.0 b at 0.65).
Xerof
Flushed the Toilet
Annnnd, after 3 months silence, Shane starts posting on X late yesterday. Well, what a fucking surprise
Last edited:
At that price Koko would still be getting a nice discount.
(Thanks again Mute for this table)
Similar threads
