Geo owes a public explanation as he released his shot publicly
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
Parasites
Not this year. They are all full of self importance
TheCount
Regular
Voted no to both - haven't done anything and won't be doing anything in the foreseeable future... Why pay for the milk & cookies....
TC.
FilthyRich2
Regular
In respect to filing fees at ICSID they are not as significant other posters have suggested
It's a staged approach, we have already made a significant investment in fees overall it might add up to $3m (both parties) but we are past half way mark for AVZ share
https://icsid.worldbank.org/services/cost-of-proceedings/schedule-fees/2023
It's a staged approach, we have already made a significant investment in fees overall it might add up to $3m (both parties) but we are past half way mark for AVZ share
https://icsid.worldbank.org/services/cost-of-proceedings/schedule-fees/2023
Hemicuda
Regular
Why the fuck would you waste a single dollar more, to get to the agm, to be treated with contempt.?????
Cumquat Cap
Regular
Don’t waste a cent going to the agm, Nigel will do as he always does, arrogantly dismiss questions and treat shareholders like dirt. I’m voting no for both directors also, this is a litigation shell not a mining company.
Nigel continues to protect himself over shareholders are no doubt too arrogant to accept Deboss’ input.
Nigel continues to protect himself over shareholders are no doubt too arrogant to accept Deboss’ input.
BRICK
Where’s Zeebot 😶🌫️
19,998 emails more like it
BRICK
Where’s Zeebot 😶🌫️
No strippers then i'm out
geo_au
RegularJoined Feb 16, 2023
Last seen Today at 5:29 PM
We can see u geo . No pressure buddy . Just give us thumbs up .
If both directors are voted out this year, does that mean 2 vacancies in the board for grab in the following AGM? Would that leave open opportunities for whoever wants to get on board to serve their own interests like what happened last AGM and we had to fight so hard to beat their ambition?
I hear you bud
TheCount
Regular
By memory, we have a “maximum number” on the Board. They don‘t have to be replaced I believe..
Azzler
Top 20
Geo is full of shit mate.
Why are you guys waiting for something from him?
I repeat, Geo has nothing! Possibly funding, but that's nothing to get excited about.
RHyNO
Regular
All they’ve done is have a break. Anyone suggesting otherwise has Stockholm syndrome. They have been doing sweet FA for months. On our dime. I wish I could raise funding in my company and when the only thing that was of concern to anyone turned out to be a significant problem. Just lock up their money and go golfing. Ah to be a mining boomer elite! What a gift…I mean grift.
Schnitzelfresser
Regular
Many here, like me, are pretty disappointed. An announced missing positive announcement, missing annual report, another delay in arbitration and dismissal of Deboss as (theoretical) communicator. He didn't even do that once.
You don't hear anything for a long time and when you do you only find out negative things, so why the hell keep your feet still if the tactic doesn't work. But maybe the BOD will prove me wrong soon. But now I'm writing again with this negative undertone and everyone will come back and praise the best BOD.
it's also possible that deboss didn't agree with nigel's strategy and decisions. there were discussions and they decided against the role again, because what's the point of communicating if everything is secret...
You don't hear anything for a long time and when you do you only find out negative things, so why the hell keep your feet still if the tactic doesn't work. But maybe the BOD will prove me wrong soon. But now I'm writing again with this negative undertone and everyone will come back and praise the best BOD.
it's also possible that deboss didn't agree with nigel's strategy and decisions. there were discussions and they decided against the role again, because what's the point of communicating if everything is secret...
AVZ International Pty Ltd. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (ARB/23/20) - DRC inability to pay
I understand that in the lead-up to ICSID arbitration, the DRC appointed five separate law firms, plus a number of high profile advisors to manage its defenses. Presumably the DRC has similar representation assisting it and Cominiere at ICC arbitration.
This level of support doesn't come cheap, and I wonder if the DRC stiffed them, and they responded by withdrawing services. If so, why am I not surprised.
Regardless of the reasons behind the DRC's inability to continue funding its position, there are potential ramifications for AVZ inc.
I asked both Perplexity and Gemini to summarise the potential ramifications from an AVZ perspective. This a summary of what they had to say:
1. Accelerated Legal Process and Default Judgement
There you go...food for thought.
However, I don't agree entirely with their responses, particularly about the likelihood of a negotiated settlement, which I think is the most likely scenario. If the DRC has no money for its defenses; it has no money for compensation. Therefore it may be restoration of PR13359 and the right to mine.
Cheers
F
Edit: This post assumes that the DRC is unable/unwilling to pay ICSID arbitration fees. At this stage the reason for suspension of proceedings is not public, and could indeed be something quite different.
I understand that in the lead-up to ICSID arbitration, the DRC appointed five separate law firms, plus a number of high profile advisors to manage its defenses. Presumably the DRC has similar representation assisting it and Cominiere at ICC arbitration.
This level of support doesn't come cheap, and I wonder if the DRC stiffed them, and they responded by withdrawing services. If so, why am I not surprised.
Regardless of the reasons behind the DRC's inability to continue funding its position, there are potential ramifications for AVZ inc.
I asked both Perplexity and Gemini to summarise the potential ramifications from an AVZ perspective. This a summary of what they had to say:
1. Accelerated Legal Process and Default Judgement
- Scenario: With the DRC's diminished capacity to participate in the proceedings, the tribunal may expedite the process. This could lead to a default judgment in favor of AVZ if the DRC fails to adequately defend its position.
- Historical Precedent: Numerous cases, particularly those involving resource-rich nations with fluctuating economic conditions, have seen similar outcomes. For example, in the case of Enrho St Limited v. Republic of Kazakhstan, the tribunal granted a default judgment due to the respondent's failure to participate.
2. Negotiated Settlement
- Scenario: While less likely, the DRC might seek a negotiated settlement to avoid a costly default judgment. This could involve concessions from the DRC, such as allowing AVZ to proceed with the Manono Lithium Project or providing financial compensation.
- Considerations: AVZ should carefully consider the potential benefits and risks of a negotiated settlement. While it may offer a quicker resolution, it could also result in a less favorable outcome than a default judgment.
3. Political Intervention
- Scenario: The DRC government may attempt to influence the tribunal's decision through political pressure or diplomatic channels. However, this could backfire and further damage the DRC's international reputation.
- Countermeasures: AVZ could employ diplomatic channels to counteract any political pressure from the DRC. Additionally, it could seek support from international organizations and governments with interests in promoting investment and upholding international law.
4. Financial Implications and Strategic Considerations
- Financial Gain: A favorable outcome for AVZ could result in significant financial gains, including compensation for lost profits and damages.
- Strategic Positioning: The case could strengthen AVZ's position as a major player in the lithium market, enhancing its reputation and attracting investment.
- Risk Mitigation: While the DRC's financial difficulties present a significant opportunity for AVZ, it is important to remain cautious and mitigate potential risks, such as unforeseen legal challenges or changes in the political landscape.
There you go...food for thought.
However, I don't agree entirely with their responses, particularly about the likelihood of a negotiated settlement, which I think is the most likely scenario. If the DRC has no money for its defenses; it has no money for compensation. Therefore it may be restoration of PR13359 and the right to mine.
Cheers
F
Edit: This post assumes that the DRC is unable/unwilling to pay ICSID arbitration fees. At this stage the reason for suspension of proceedings is not public, and could indeed be something quite different.
Last edited:
Similar threads
