Slanderous claims against AVZ Board of Directors

[Dazmac66]

Please deposit information here that is slanderous or damaging to the reputation of AVZ management.

 

[Dazmac66]

morningsuits5
101 Posts.
29

20/04/24

15:12

Post #: 73438465

Thanks, Rattlerock. Your open mind gives me a sliver of hope that other AVZ shareholders will also start asking if the narrative offered by Nigel Ferguson is true.

AVZ shareholders need only consider four or five questions, which led me to come to the conclusion that Nigel has his own self-serving agenda, which is diametrically opposed to the interests of AVZ Shareholders.

If AVZ have an ICSID claim that has a high probability of success why has Locke not signed a funding agreement yet?

If AVZ really has the potential for a significant financial windfall, why is the company months away being insolvent with no viable financiers in sight?

[some shareholders will refute the suggestion insolvency is imminent but the numbers dont lie. AVZ's recent Half Year Report revealed that AVZ spent around $6m on legal fees and litigation related expenses in the second half of last year. AVZ are currently involved in more legal disputes now than at the start of the second half of last year. On the 31st of December, AVZ had just $6.2 million in cash less. Assuming the same burn rate as the recent HY, AVZ will be insolvent before the 30th June]

Is it a coincidence that the MOU never eventuated, and that Locke funding is just a few diligence questions away, and that these excuses have allowed Nigel to stay at the helm and steer the company toward being delisted, at which point Nigel need never answer these questions?

 

[Dazmac66]

morningsuits5
101 Posts.
29

12/04/24

21:02

Post #: 73323606

Originally posted by NeilDiamondz: ↑
Alright NeilDiamondz, let's unpack this mess together. It sounds like you're worried about the AVZ board playing hide-and-seek with some pretty crucial information. Like, the kind of information that could leave shareholders holding the bag if they don't find out soon. First things first, if AVZ has truly lost control of its shares in that local subsidiary... well, that's a dumpster fire waiting to happen. We're talking losing control of the litigation, which, yeah, could seriously mean "game over" for the whole shebang. Not exactly the kind of news you sweep under the rug. Now, let's talk about those pesky continuous disclosure obligations. They're not just a suggestion, folks. If investors start feeling like Nigel Ferguson, John Clarke, and the whole crew were less than forthcoming with some ahem important details, well, that's a recipe for trouble. Deja vu, anyone? Kinda sounds like a sequel to the Omni Bridgeway class action extravaganza, doesn't it?
Bottom line: Keeping this kind of thing under wraps is a high-stakes game, and those stakes just got a whole lot higher

 

[Dazmac66]

morningsuits5
101 Posts.
29

18/04/24

17:08

Post #: 73411911

I feel for you and all the other AVZ shareholders that are long. It's a terrible outcome but deep down you know the truth. It's over. No litigation funder will provide capital, AVZ is broke, and once AVZ delist, the shares are worthless. I suspect Nigel Ferguson knows this but is more interested in covering his behind than looking after you and all the other shareholders

 

[Azzler]

Oh I hope AVZ goes after these tools.

https://hotcrapper.com.au/threads/running-discussion-on-sp.4111732/?post_id=73448905&embed=1

 

[Azzler]

From X.