Retrobyte
Hates a beer
These could be questions for deboss in his new role .![]()
For $1 per year I don't think deboss will be answering any questions
These could be questions for deboss in his new role .![]()
It's the thought that countsFor $1 per year I don't think deboss will be answering any questions
Reckon DeBoss will be getting on with some bulk/high return activities while at the same time making sure all of us Mum and Dad investors are looked after with comms and updatesThese could be questions for deboss in his new role .![]()
There hasn't been a mention of Locke for a while now, I don't think it's proceeding unless it's all happening behind the scenes under darkness.Not sure exactly but I reckon the 20m USD agreed with Locke should cover it. 9card told us that a significant part of the costs for legal was in prep work and that can be used between the cases so funds needed on that end should be reduced moving forward. But obvs paying 7 board members to '2030 and beyond' (funny no one got up in his grill for saying that lol) is going to be a drain on the purse imo
View attachment 71307
Wrong !!For $1 per year I don't think deboss will be answering any questions
Kinda feels like a Langford thing but hopefully I’m wrong as Deboss actually gives a shit and has been to site.It's a good play by Deboss, should AVZ do well and remain alive as a company, I'm sure he'd get voted in on the board should he put his hand up
There hasn't been a mention of Locke for a while now, I don't think it's proceeding unless it's all happening behind the scenes under darkness.
There hasn't been a mention of Locke for a while now, I don't think it's proceeding unless it's all happening behind the scenes under darkness.
I’ve been saying this for a long time. The requests for escrow balance checks from AVZ to Christian Lukusa line up 1 to 3 weeks before Locke updates in official announcements and the first mention of the need for an ‘appropriate security package for the facility’ was just 6 days after ‘Mr Lukusa demonstrated suspicious resistance’ to communicating information relating to the account. Nothing else makes sense imoI'm guessing we had told Locke they'd be first in line for any recouped cash, and that Locke considered the 20m sitting in escrow as the most likely form of on-hand security for their loan (due to likelihood of Cong losing out at ICC and needing to pay compensation), but as those funds may now have gone up in smoke we are at a loss to provide Locke with any collateral for their loan.
It's doubtful, they are all under the thumb of Xi Jinping and the CCP including the Congolese elites, CATH. The Chinese in particular will have zero autonomy outside of that.With the benefit of hindsight, I reckon Cong Mao might regret not pocketing the $US20m and relinquishing his 15% stake in Dathcom.
Of course the funds in escrow can be prudently used as securityAccording to AVZ, the missing $US20m belongs to Cong Mao Huai as payment for his 15% of Dathcom.
According to Cong Mao Huai and the DRC criminal court, the missing $US20m belongs to AVZ as returned payment for his 15% of Dathcom.
Regardless of who actually owns the $US20m, its ownership has been in dispute since 2021. Therefore it could never (prudently) be used as security for Locke or any other debt facility. When this is viewed through the lens of AVZ's only other significant asset, the disputed tenement PR 13559, unfortunately there is not much that AVZ can offer a financier, which is not already encumbered or in dispute.
However, all is not lost. Given Cong's well-established contacts in Kinshasa's seedy underbelly, he should be able to locate and retrieve (somebody's) $US20m in a heartbeat, and in the process possibly moderate Christian Lusaka's boyish enthusiasm.
With the benefit of hindsight, I reckon Cong Mao might regret not pocketing the $US20m and relinquishing his 15% stake in Dathcom.
Just musing on a wet Friday afternoon.
Cheers
F
The issue is not about funds being in escrow, but the uncertainty about their ownership.Of course the funds in escrow can be prudently used as security
If the funder agrees that the SPA’s were completed correctly and that the losses sustained to be recovered will cover the amount
I think there is more chance that DLA piper don’t understand basic contract law than it being a coincidence that there was a 6 day turnaround between the suspicious resistance in confirmation of funds and the need for an appropriate security package for the facility being announced but you do you boo
View attachment 71368
Fun fact if the claims had been dealt with and the decision made with damages awarded we wouldn't need financingThe issue is not about funds being in escrow, but the uncertainty about their ownership.
I doubt any financier would accept as security money whose ownership is in dispute or yet to be established.
Further, AVZ's claims are not dealt with at this stage, and no decision or award tabled.
Fun fact if the claims had been dealt with and the decision made with damages awarded we wouldn't need financing
But I guess we are 11 months deep into this process because the original plan for an appropriate security package for the facility is proceeding exactly as planned lmao
Cong did relinquish his 15% stake in Dathcom when AVZ handed over $US20m. Cong returned it because sellers remorse with Lusaka setting up an escrow account and placed in charge of that transaction.According to AVZ, the missing $US20m belongs to Cong Mao Huai as payment for his 15% of Dathcom.
According to Cong Mao Huai and the DRC criminal court, the missing $US20m belongs to AVZ as returned payment for his 15% of Dathcom.
Regardless of who actually owns the $US20m, its ownership has been in dispute since 2021. Therefore it could never (prudently) be used as security for Locke or any other debt facility. When this is viewed through the lens of AVZ's only other significant asset, the disputed tenement PR 13559, unfortunately there is not much that AVZ can offer a financier, which is not already encumbered or in dispute.
However, all is not lost. Given Cong's well-established contacts in Kinshasa's seedy underbelly, he should be able to locate and retrieve (somebody's) $US20m in a heartbeat, and in the process possibly moderate Christian Lusaka's boyish enthusiasm.
With the benefit of hindsight, I reckon Cong Mao might regret not pocketing the $US20m and relinquishing his 15% stake in Dathcom.
Just musing on a wet Friday afternoon.
Cheers
F
Correct me if I'm wrong , but did we not also give Cong 200+million shares ? A nice $200 million + pay day for the taking . Or did he sell them for peanuts because he thought the Manono project was a dog with fleas ?Cong did relinquish his 15% stake in Dathcom when AVZ handed over $US20m. Cong returned it because sellers remorse with Lusaka setting up an escrow account and placed in charge of that transaction.
Missing money is purely between Cong and Lusaka with nothing to do with AVZ. Sellers remorse is not a legal argument for thinking the deal can be reversed.