yaseenmeoncebefore
Emerged
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:
