AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Judge the DRC by outcomes not promises.
LINK:https://x.com/RDCongoONU/status/2029668538726662231?s=20
Funny comment: https://x.com/moses26200/status/2029725524210372894?s=20
LINK:https://x.com/RDCongoONU/status/2029668538726662231?s=20
Funny comment: https://x.com/moses26200/status/2029725524210372894?s=20
Mouthpiecenomnom
Regular
Im glad for KoBold's efforts. They were a useful tool to get us in the room with the real players. All Nigel has to do is say no.
Dave Evans
Regular
Might have been discussed already, if so not sure how I missed this.
https://iamaeg.net/files/1121C3C3-EB96-478E-B977-ED79CCAC26F4.pdf
So the Zijin appeal to ICC on jurisdiction was successful?
https://iamaeg.net/files/1121C3C3-EB96-478E-B977-ED79CCAC26F4.pdf
So the Zijin appeal to ICC on jurisdiction was successful?
Carlos Danger
Top 20
No. This is just the decision for AVZ's document requests in Zijin's annulment attempt of the ICC jurisdiction ruling that AVZ already won imo
ChatGPT translation/summary:
1. Background of the dispute
The dispute relates to ownership of shares in Dathcom Mining SA, the company developing the Manono lithium project.
Original shareholding (after various transactions):
AVZ International Pty Ltd – 75%
Cominière SA (a state mining company owned by the DRC government) – 25%
Key events:
In 2016, a joint venture was created to develop the Manono lithium deposit.
AVZ Minerals acquired a majority stake and later transferred its rights to its subsidiary AVZ International.
AVZ tried several times (2019–2020) to buy 15% of Cominière’s shares, but the DRC government rejected the offer.
In 2021, a Chinese mining group proposed buying 15% of Dathcom from Cominière.
On 10 September 2021, Cominière sold 15% of Dathcom to Jin Cheng Mining (JCM).
AVZ claimed it had a pre-emption right (right of first refusal) and opposed recognising JCM as a shareholder.
2. Arbitration proceedings
JCM started arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce.
JCM asked the tribunal to:
Declare AVZ’s opposition an abuse of majority power
Force AVZ to amend Dathcom’s statutes to include JCM as shareholder
Award USD 2 million in damages
Arbitration result (11 March 2024)
The arbitrator ruled:
The tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
The arbitrator did not rule on:
whether AVZ’s pre-emption rights were breached
whether the share sale was valid
allegations of corruption or fraud.
JCM was ordered to pay:
USD 75,000 arbitration costs
AUD 813,474 toward AVZ’s legal costs.
3. Appeal before the Paris Court of Appeal
JCM filed an application to annul the arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator wrongly declined jurisdiction.
During this appeal process, AVZ made additional procedural requests, including:
AVZ requests
AVZ asked the court to:
Compel JCM to produce documents, including:
communications between the Chinese group and Cominière
records of key meetings in 2021
documents relating to valuation of the share sale
documents relating to a USD 70 million donation allegedly linked to the deal
Issue a letter rogatory to courts in the DRC to obtain testimony.
Call a witness (the chairwoman of Cominière) to testify.
AVZ argued these documents could prove corruption surrounding the share sale, which would affect whether JCM was a legitimate shareholder and therefore whether arbitration jurisdiction existed.
4. JCM’s response
JCM argued the requests should be rejected because:
An annulment proceeding is limited in scope.
The court cannot reopen the merits of the dispute.
The requested documents relate to the validity of the share sale, which the arbitrator explicitly did not decide.
Therefore they are irrelevant to the jurisdiction issue being reviewed.
5. Court’s reasoning
The judge responsible for managing the case found:
The arbitration award being challenged only concerns jurisdiction.
The arbitrator deliberately declined to rule on corruption or validity of the share sale.
Therefore, evidence about corruption or the share sale is not relevant to deciding whether the arbitrator was right to decline jurisdiction.
Because of this:
The requested documents would not help resolve the annulment appeal.
The same reasoning applied to:
the witness testimony request
the request to obtain evidence from Congo.
6. Final ruling (20 January 2026)
The Paris Court of Appeal procedural judge:
Rejected all requests by AVZ for document production and witness evidence.
Ordered AVZ to pay legal costs of the incident.
Ordered AVZ to pay €20,000 to JCM for legal expenses.
Key takeaway
This ruling does not decide the main dispute about Manono or the share sale.
It only decides a procedural issue in the annulment appeal, specifically:
AVZ cannot obtain additional evidence about alleged corruption during the annulment proceedings because those issues were not part of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction decision.
The main annulment case itself is still ongoing.
1. Background of the dispute
The dispute relates to ownership of shares in Dathcom Mining SA, the company developing the Manono lithium project.
Original shareholding (after various transactions):
AVZ International Pty Ltd – 75%
Cominière SA (a state mining company owned by the DRC government) – 25%
Key events:
In 2016, a joint venture was created to develop the Manono lithium deposit.
AVZ Minerals acquired a majority stake and later transferred its rights to its subsidiary AVZ International.
AVZ tried several times (2019–2020) to buy 15% of Cominière’s shares, but the DRC government rejected the offer.
In 2021, a Chinese mining group proposed buying 15% of Dathcom from Cominière.
On 10 September 2021, Cominière sold 15% of Dathcom to Jin Cheng Mining (JCM).
AVZ claimed it had a pre-emption right (right of first refusal) and opposed recognising JCM as a shareholder.
2. Arbitration proceedings
JCM started arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce.
JCM asked the tribunal to:
Declare AVZ’s opposition an abuse of majority power
Force AVZ to amend Dathcom’s statutes to include JCM as shareholder
Award USD 2 million in damages
Arbitration result (11 March 2024)
The arbitrator ruled:
The tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
The arbitrator did not rule on:
whether AVZ’s pre-emption rights were breached
whether the share sale was valid
allegations of corruption or fraud.
JCM was ordered to pay:
USD 75,000 arbitration costs
AUD 813,474 toward AVZ’s legal costs.
3. Appeal before the Paris Court of Appeal
JCM filed an application to annul the arbitration award, arguing the arbitrator wrongly declined jurisdiction.
During this appeal process, AVZ made additional procedural requests, including:
AVZ requests
AVZ asked the court to:
Compel JCM to produce documents, including:
communications between the Chinese group and Cominière
records of key meetings in 2021
documents relating to valuation of the share sale
documents relating to a USD 70 million donation allegedly linked to the deal
Issue a letter rogatory to courts in the DRC to obtain testimony.
Call a witness (the chairwoman of Cominière) to testify.
AVZ argued these documents could prove corruption surrounding the share sale, which would affect whether JCM was a legitimate shareholder and therefore whether arbitration jurisdiction existed.
4. JCM’s response
JCM argued the requests should be rejected because:
An annulment proceeding is limited in scope.
The court cannot reopen the merits of the dispute.
The requested documents relate to the validity of the share sale, which the arbitrator explicitly did not decide.
Therefore they are irrelevant to the jurisdiction issue being reviewed.
5. Court’s reasoning
The judge responsible for managing the case found:
The arbitration award being challenged only concerns jurisdiction.
The arbitrator deliberately declined to rule on corruption or validity of the share sale.
Therefore, evidence about corruption or the share sale is not relevant to deciding whether the arbitrator was right to decline jurisdiction.
Because of this:
The requested documents would not help resolve the annulment appeal.
The same reasoning applied to:
the witness testimony request
the request to obtain evidence from Congo.
6. Final ruling (20 January 2026)
The Paris Court of Appeal procedural judge:
Rejected all requests by AVZ for document production and witness evidence.
Ordered AVZ to pay legal costs of the incident.
Ordered AVZ to pay €20,000 to JCM for legal expenses.
Key takeaway
This ruling does not decide the main dispute about Manono or the share sale.
It only decides a procedural issue in the annulment appeal, specifically:
AVZ cannot obtain additional evidence about alleged corruption during the annulment proceedings because those issues were not part of the arbitrator’s jurisdiction decision.
The main annulment case itself is still ongoing.
Similar threads
