BRICK
Zeebot Located
Fuck off Vivian
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Winenut
GO AVZ!!!!
BRICK
Zeebot Located
cruiser51
Top 20
The line:
CATH would obtain an option to purchase an indirect 30.5% stake in the project. An option is not an immediate equity investment. It is the right to become a shareholder later, if conditions become favorable.
Has the following condition missing:
CATH will pay AVZ US$259.25m to acquire a 30.5% indirect interest in the Manono Project, through the acquisition of shares in Green Lithium Holding Lte. Ltd (GLH) (a wholly owned subsidiary of AVZ International Pty Ltd (AVZI) and the holder of legal title to AVZ's interest in Dathcom Mining SA (Dathcom)), on satisfaction of certain conditions precedent, including grant of a mining licence for the project area covered by PR 13359 (Mining Licence) to Dathcom;
It makes a substantial difference to the article.
AIMO
Bin59
Regular
Another great article by Kiki this time addressing The Hidden Percentage: when the investment becomes a payment of corruption.
Part I #InvestiRDC
10/20/30% ghosts for investment in the DRC
By Kiki #Kienge
This series of articles is not a trial, it is an observation: explain an uncommon practice, explain its real mechanisms, show its destructive effects, open the debate without taboo, propose credible alternatives.
Fighting a practice does not start with insult, but with lucidity.
The Hidden Percentage: when the investment becomes a payment of corruption.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, investment does not necessarily begin with a feasibility study, a business plan or an administrative authorization.
For many project initiators, the initial step is elsewhere, in a more informal and discreet way:
- the request for a percentage.
- 20%. Sometimes up to 30%.
A percentage is requested even before the project really exists.
According to some information, one portion would be intended for institutions (ministeries, local administrations...), another for "facilitators" and the last for the one who attracted the investor.
A practice rarely written, but widely known The scene repeats itself, almost identical, regardless of the sector or province.
An investor arrives with a project: agriculture, real estate, mining, energy, technology, NGO, local SME.
Very quickly, a sentence falls, often presented as friendly advice: "Here, we must provide for the local share. ”
This "share" is generally not:
- nor legally defined,
- nor linked to a financial contribution,
- nor conditional on measurable results.
However, it is presented as essential:
- to “facilitate”,
- to "avoid blockages",
- to "secure the project",
- to “respect the realities of the field”.
Partnership or disguised predation?
In this disapproved practice, the rate requested is often based on:
- presumed access to leaders,
- the ability to "solve" situations,
- an unofficial influence,
- or simply a position of local authority.
The project is therefore considered as a source of income to be seized, rather than as a company to be developed.
A silence with heavy consequences
There are few investors who publicly criticize this practice. Why?
- fear of administrative reprisals,
- fear of an interruption of the project,
- desire to "not create waves",
- hope that the concern will end following the settlement.
This silence has a price:
- projects abandoned without announcement,
- non-recoverable funds,
- jobs that will never be created,
- an image of the country permanently weakened internationally.
The real questions that every conscious and patriotic Congolese should ask themselves are:
"Do investors have an obligation to give something?” Yes, that's what the law requires.
"Do they offer to build, or to claim the right to exist? ”
"Should the people survive thanks to the project, or should it be a source of illicit profits for the leaders? ”
As long as this confusion persists, development will remain a mirage for the Congolese population.
To be continued in the next article: What "facilitation" hides: anatomy of a shapeless system.
Part I #InvestiRDC
10/20/30% ghosts for investment in the DRC
By Kiki #Kienge
This series of articles is not a trial, it is an observation: explain an uncommon practice, explain its real mechanisms, show its destructive effects, open the debate without taboo, propose credible alternatives.
Fighting a practice does not start with insult, but with lucidity.
The Hidden Percentage: when the investment becomes a payment of corruption.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, investment does not necessarily begin with a feasibility study, a business plan or an administrative authorization.
For many project initiators, the initial step is elsewhere, in a more informal and discreet way:
- the request for a percentage.
- 20%. Sometimes up to 30%.
A percentage is requested even before the project really exists.
According to some information, one portion would be intended for institutions (ministeries, local administrations...), another for "facilitators" and the last for the one who attracted the investor.
A practice rarely written, but widely known The scene repeats itself, almost identical, regardless of the sector or province.
An investor arrives with a project: agriculture, real estate, mining, energy, technology, NGO, local SME.
Very quickly, a sentence falls, often presented as friendly advice: "Here, we must provide for the local share. ”
This "share" is generally not:
- nor legally defined,
- nor linked to a financial contribution,
- nor conditional on measurable results.
However, it is presented as essential:
- to “facilitate”,
- to "avoid blockages",
- to "secure the project",
- to “respect the realities of the field”.
Partnership or disguised predation?
In this disapproved practice, the rate requested is often based on:
- presumed access to leaders,
- the ability to "solve" situations,
- an unofficial influence,
- or simply a position of local authority.
The project is therefore considered as a source of income to be seized, rather than as a company to be developed.
A silence with heavy consequences
There are few investors who publicly criticize this practice. Why?
- fear of administrative reprisals,
- fear of an interruption of the project,
- desire to "not create waves",
- hope that the concern will end following the settlement.
This silence has a price:
- projects abandoned without announcement,
- non-recoverable funds,
- jobs that will never be created,
- an image of the country permanently weakened internationally.
The real questions that every conscious and patriotic Congolese should ask themselves are:
"Do investors have an obligation to give something?” Yes, that's what the law requires.
"Do they offer to build, or to claim the right to exist? ”
"Should the people survive thanks to the project, or should it be a source of illicit profits for the leaders? ”
As long as this confusion persists, development will remain a mirage for the Congolese population.
To be continued in the next article: What "facilitation" hides: anatomy of a shapeless system.
Retrobyte
Hates a beer
huh?
marksmann007
Regular
Stockinvesting
Regular
Non binding crap.... USA all talk. NO action.
I'll add. Question needs to be asked.
Has Nigel and BOD lost all control of this
Situation?.....Are we dead in the water?
I'll add. Question needs to be asked.
Has Nigel and BOD lost all control of this
Situation?.....Are we dead in the water?
Last edited:
Thehoneyguy
Member
We have been dead in the water for years mate
Winenut
GO AVZ!!!!
That's the spirit.....
Samus
Top 20
A quick look at the ICSID rules says this about resignations.
Those specifically mentioned rules 8(2) & 10(2) say some sort of mind numbingly boring legal jargon that I've already forgotten but seemed inconsequential.
Last edited:
Winenut
GO AVZ!!!!
Let's hope as the appointment process is progressed it isn't......."compromised"
Can't offer any inside info but probing ChatGPT:
Given he remains a member of the ICSID Panel of Arbitrators he has not been compromised as an arbitrator. If so there would have been formal notification.
Born 1971 and now in his mid 50's working as a QC in parallel with being an ICSID arbitrator, most likely scenario is either health and or overlapping workloads.
My take:
Our case has gone longer than expected due to multiple suspensions at the request of the parties. Our final award should have been mid to late last year. Looking at Salim's professional profile he's a very busy man arbitrating for ICSID in parallel with maintaining an active legal practice and lecturing on international arbitration. His news feed mentions being in court Dec 2025 with the next item he deemed worthy of mention being in 2024. My point being that since news items are few and far between perhaps this Dec 2025 item is more noteworthy and demanding of his time than it seems.
I speculate it's just overlapping workloads and given we are already suspended at our own request until end of Feb it's a good time to step aside allowing the vacancy to be filled without delaying proceedings further.
PutUsernameHere
Regular
Salim was the arbitrator appointed by us; so I assume his replacement will also then be appointed by us as well.
Similar threads
