AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Nigel and AVZ management used their career/reputation/life to tell you that they are right now holding 75%, not for once but for lots of times. So give them a trust? Some of the long time poster still mention Zijin is getting 30%?
IMO, AVZ may not extend the CATH 24% deal deadline. If they dont f.... transfer the money by end of month, they are off.
I am happy to wait for next one.
IMO, AVZ may not extend the CATH 24% deal deadline. If they dont f.... transfer the money by end of month, they are off.
I am happy to wait for next one.
Retrobyte
Hates a beer
Announcements can be released during suspension. Trading is the only thing suspended, otherwise the company operates as usual in terms of compliance with ASX requirements regarding announcements etc
Sammy_da_Smile
Regular
Hmm but does this only come into affect after FID?Can anyone confirm if this is accurate?
If so huge stuff up from management, and who is our lawyer, we need a new one lol
If it's true then we need to forget abt arbitration, courts, any of it, dont dare bloody waste shareholders time and money....give them their 15% with our tail between our legs and get on with the bloody show (with a new lawyer), idk we obviously need more details, but doesnt look good from a glance, welcome aboard Zijin, now help build this bloody mine you sly dogs
View attachment 6299
I think I saw somewhere they was a combo of things needed.
Such as FS and FID?
It's not only a cruel sea!
Hemicuda
Regular
Yes agree, re 75% holding, trying to understand the 30% comments that are being thrown about
I believe zijin are stating the 15% we acquired in 2019 is not legally binding, but at the moment zijin is the only one saying this so I take with a grain of salt. I think they trying to muddy the waters so bad that AVZ just say fuck it, have 15% and let’s build a mine or we could be in court for a few years
Xerof
Biding my Time 1971
You guys are too easily swayed by the organised trolling. Stay strong and wait for more details from the Company. It may be good or mildly inconvenient (15% to Z) If thats going to be the case, then CATH be replaced with non-aligned to Z entity, preferably European.
The Arbitration, if AVZI entertain it, will not delay building the mine. Its a minor ownership issue, not a mining license issue
The Arbitration, if AVZI entertain it, will not delay building the mine. Its a minor ownership issue, not a mining license issue
It went on snacks?
Hemicuda
Regular
easily swayed would of seen a sell out many years ago,,, just like to see all the info on offer so as to try and understand for myself what is bs or not,,, all good mate appreciate the reply,,,Sammy_da_Smile
Regular
Should we start a new thread, with the facts so that members may refer back too in quick fashion?
The fact is we don’t know the facts. That’s the problem!!
Xerof
Biding my Time 1971
yes, too true
DiscoDanNZ
Regular
Yeah that was my understanding I thought I read somewhere that pre-emptive rights couldn't be exercised until the issuing of the Mining License.Hmm but does this only come into affect after FID?
I think I saw somewhere they was a combo of things needed.
Such as FS and FID?
BUT don't quote me on that as I've read so much the last week or so I can't remember where or what it came from. Seem to recall it being from an AVZ announcement or contract.
So one thing that’s bugging me ( or another thing ) Nigel has always maintained that AVZ are still in discussion with Cominiere regarding the 15%. Now Zijin saying they bought it ( was it November they said? ). Yet AVZ still in discussions since then as per ASX announcements. Did Cominiere not say “sorry man that’s sold?”. You make an offer on a car and they sell to someone else they dont keep negotiating with you.
Very much looking forward to official DRC announcements on this.
Very much looking forward to official DRC announcements on this.
The Fox
Regular
Can anyone confirm if this is accurate?
If so huge stuff up from management, and who is our lawyer, we need a new one lol
If it's true then we need to forget abt arbitration, courts, any of it, dont dare bloody waste shareholders time and money....give them their 15% with our tail between our legs and get on with the bloody show (with a new lawyer), idk we obviously need more details, but doesnt look good from a glance
View attachment 6299
Does anyone happen to have a copy the Dathcom shareholders agreement? Assuming as with other jurisdictions a shareholders agreement can add additional terms and conditions around the Corporations ACT, but not ignore it. e.g. Share Classes and several other items can be detailed in a shareholders agreement in much greater detail. It should be pretty easy to ascertain and conditions around the pre-emptive rights. This may all boil down to the legitimacy of the shareholders agreement vs the Corporation act.
Of course, reading extracts of either without the entire document/s for context is only giving a portion of the story.
AVZ lawyers would have a serious case of gross negligence to answer if the advice provided to AVZ was inaccurate.
For AVZ to ignore requests for a Dathcom shareholders meeting or ignore Z without good cause would also place AVZ and its management in the firing line for a significant shareholder driven class action.
Having said all that, I find it highly unlikely the advice provided to AVZ from its well-paid lawyers would be inaccurate, in fact it is almost inconceivable that this contentious point around calling or holding a shareholders meeting has not been the absolute main focus of legal advice for months.
When I first read the highlights of this one page, I was concerned, then after considering how simple or straightforward the point of contention is, I felt the matter may not be as complex as previously thought.
Other items that have appear to have transpired like the part payment by Z for the 15%, shows lack of confidence or some uncertainty in the 15% transaction / purchase, the seemingly discounted price of the 15% that is causing an uproar locally, (no doubt other monies under the table, but still) and no high level of Government backing of Z on this claim, and considering the high level meeting between CATH and Felix and friends, certainly questions around the involvement by Z would have been asked and answered. (unless the issue with Z transpired post CATH and Felix meeting)
As I mentioned previously, AVZ is at a point / time of weakness for such claims by Z considering the timing of all this, everyday lost now causes AVZ to lose or delay millions of dollars of future revenues with ongoing delays in building out Manono. ASX Market sentiment gets trashed, and CATH is likely considering their position.
Arbitration taking up to 2 years based on the recent example is concerning. Assuming AVZ engage, yet this could be only the first attempt by Z to secure or have its position recognised. They would have multiple legal options across numerous courts and jurisdictions I would have thought.
As others have said, the quick answer to all of this is Felix and friends stepping in, maybe they are, maybe they are not. You would think it is in the interest of Felix and friends to swiftly sort this out.
In summary, this claim by Z at this time is not unlike an attempt to blackmail yet certainly ambush AVZ for some kind of outcome in Z’s favour, otherwise there could be years of litigation. I don’t buy into the Dathomir issue and the other 15% in contention, they are just jumping on the bandwagon to support Z and make AVZ look worse in the current issue.
So unless I’ve missed something, it all comes down to whether Felix and friends weigh in quickly and resolve at the highest level or AVZ negotiates an outcome with Z and then CATH respectively. IMO its more likely AVZ have done nothing wrong, yet unfortunately now need to navigate the games and wrong doings of others in the best interests of AVZ shareholders.
Cheers The Fox
DiscoDanNZ
Regular
Similar threads
