AVZ Discussion 2022

[Retrobyte]

Its kind of strange because if they did not have the authority to hear the case why are they hearing the case?

Because that's how courts work. If there is a jurisdictional issue it is up to the other party to submit their arguments and for the court to rule. I have one of those I'm running tomorrow in the IRC

 

[Carlos Danger]

Update at icsid page:

Case Details | ICSID

t.co

Its kind of strange because if they did not have the authority to hear the case why are they hearing the case? More importantly why has the DRC asked the question as it gives authority and legitimacy to the ICSID,

Because that's how courts work. If there is a jurisdictional issue it is up to the other party to submit their arguments and for the court to rule. I have one of those I'm running tomorrow in the IRC

Exact same thing happened in the ICC case vs Cominiere. It's a delaying tactic. The ICSID will have ruled that they prima facie have jurisdiction because THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY FUCKING NAMED IN THE DRC MINING CODE LMFAO

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5934d2ae6b8f5beeb5ba23f3/t/67d3bd288dbce72fde15904f/1741929783803/20250310+27720+SVE+-+Copie+de+Courtoisie+de+la+Sentence+Partielle_en.pdf

818. The Defendant has not given a convincing explanation to question 9 of the Arbitral Tribunal, asking whether the Kalemie High Court should have taken into account the existence of the arbitration clause in the Amended JV Contract and declared itself incompetent to deal with certain issues, including the contract for the termination of the Amended JV Contract .

819. Indeed, the Defendant never explained on what legal basis the Kalemie High Court had based its jurisdiction, but only asserted that it "had jurisdiction to establish this termination and draw the consequences thereof" and "must be accepted by this Court and by the Parties.

820. As they had not been summoned, the Claimants were unable to invoke the lack of jurisdiction of the Kalemie High Court due to the arbitration clause contained in article 11 of the Amended JV Contract which, according to them, would have led the Kalemie High Court to declare itself lacking jurisdiction'.

821. The Arbitral Tribunal is astonished by the fact that the High Court of Kalemie found that a contract had been terminated without the other parties to the contract being heard or summoned to express their position.

822. In fact, the Defendant summoned CAMI, which is not a party to the Amended JV Contract, before the High Court of Kalemie and not AVZI and Dathcom.

823. The Defendant argued that CAMI was the "sole defendant in the proceedings, in the presence of the Public Prosecutor". It did not answer the question of whether the other parties to the contract were required under Congolese law to be heard or summoned, but stated that the Arbitral Tribunal does not have to rule either on the jurisdiction of the TGI of Kalemie, or on the merits of the grounds for this decision.

824. However, in the present award, the Arbitral Tribunal must rule on the emergency measures ordered by the Emergency Arbitrator and take into account the actions of the Parties in the context of these proceedings.

825. The Arbitral Tribunal does not rule on the merits of the dispute, so its award does not have the same purpose or basis as the judgment of the Kalemie High Court. In fact, it does not even concern the same parties, since only Cominière and CAMI were parties to the Congolese proceedings, even though the rights of AVZI, Dathcom and GLH are directly affected by this judgment.

826. The Arbitral Tribunal will not decide in this Partial Award whether the Defendant's obtaining of the Kalemie TGI Judgment constitutes "fraud" as raised by the Claimants in their Mémoire en Duplique of April 2, 2024, paras. 88 to 91 and at hearing of April 3, 2024 364 since this is a question of substance, noting in passing that this argument was raised only the day before the hearing of April 3, 2024'.

827. This question can be left open at this stage, as the Arbitral Tribunal can only observe, and this is not disputed by the Defendant, that the Judgment of the Kalemie High Court was not rendered in a manner that respected the adversarial process or the arbitration clause contained in article 11.1 of the Amended JV Contract.

828. The Arbitral Tribunal therefore rejects the Defendant's argument that this Judgment would deprive the Order of May 5, 2024 of any effect and that the emergency measures contained therein should be lifted.

829. This Judgment of the Kalemie High Court cannot therefore be invoked as an obstacle to the emergency , and each violation invoked by the Claimants in their Request for partial liquidation of the penalty payments must be examined in the light of all the circumstances of case. Admissibility and admissibility under Congolese law of the Claimants' submissions

830. With regard to the admissibility of the Claimants' submissions, the Arbitral Tribunal notes that the Claimants' main request in their Statement of Claim on the merits is that the Arbitral Tribunal declare the termination of the Amended JV Contract null and void and allow contractual relations to continue.

831. The questions whether these submissions made by the Claimants are admissible or admissible under Congolese law are questions of admissibility and substance which the Arbitral Tribunal will decide in these proceedings when it issues its Final Award but which, in the limited context of the decisions made in this Partial Award, do not need to be decided.

832. It should also be emphasized that the decisions of the Arbitral Tribunal in this Partial Award are without prejudice to future decisions of the Arbitral Tribunal in its Final Award on questions of admissibility and/or admission of claims on the merits.

833. At this stage, however, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot rule out the possibility that the Claimants' conclusions, in particular in execution of the Amended IV Contract, will subsequently be admitted in the Final Award. The criterion of risk of irreparable harm therefore exists in this respect at the date of issue this Partial Award.

834. Accordingly, the Arbitral Tribunal concludes that the risk of irreparable harm criterion is still met at the date of issuance this Partial Award and rejects this second objection by the Defendant

 

[Dave Evans]

Not sure on the handle question

Winenut

I like wine

Could have been Steaknut I like steak

Could have been Garfishnut I like Garfish

Could have been Cashewnutnut I like Cashew Nuts

Why would I need to change?

Or have i completely misunderstood your post

Lucky you don’t have big ears

 

[Xerof]

@Carlos Danger

Bang on as usual.

So this seems to clear the way for the hearing in 19 18 days time, (unless AVZ temporarily suspend to enable meaningful discussions with DRC)

If we are still on track for that, it's advantage Nigel once again

TIME Pink Floyd 173

Ticking away the moments that make up a dull day
You fritter and waste the hours in an off-hand way
Kicking around on a piece of ground in your home town
Waiting for someone or something to show you the way

 

[Xerof]

I thought $10 was the anchoring price and $12 was the meme price with the f@#$ Zinjin bonus?
Not that I can be bothered going back 2167 pages to confirm.

And an AVZ cap

 

[Skar]

This Maja and the other downrampers of a sell price actually remind me of this carrot dick guy and his gang... I mean, manipulation of opinions is not a Chinese invention, after all. Who knows in which boat they are actually sitting...

I dont think they are downrampers. I think they have A LOT of shares bought at a very very low price and have grown weary of holding onto them and are looking to cash out. Its a difference of opinion short term vs long term. I didnt expect to be locked up this long either but I still want the value of the asset.

And it looks like the drc government have just said that Manono south is only for the USA.

So if the price isnt right, domicile AVZ in the US, or do what EUR did and get bought by a SPAC. I still don't get why you feel this is our only out, its not. It might be our best way forward but until the details are out, I am not waiving pom poms for any outcome.

 

[JAG]

"Help me, Obi-Nigel, you're my only hope."

 

[Ants66]

Moot point, not "mute point"

I thought it was a moo point, like a cow's opinion - it doesn't matter!

Joey Tribbiani

 

[Skar]

And how does that reconcile with the US claiming they can only get involved if all the bullshit and shenanigans stops? By starting from a foundation of bullshit shenanigans? That's why the ONLY way this works is for AVZ to AGREE.

Agree to the framework, which is nonbinding... if Kobold can get everyone to agree to a deal at a fair price for AVZ - thats the best outcome for us. If Kobold can get everyone to agree to a deal but wont offer a fair price - thats the second best outcome, we say no thank you, the value for SH is too low and we continue legal cases and maybe kobold offer more or another partner emerges, G7 investment comes in (which I liked the article yesterday its on their Radar US are just first off the rung with there investment) or we win legal cases get ML issued and mine it ourselves like we intended to 3 years ago (we probably suffer some dilution) but in that case Kobold would have set a precedent on a way forward for us (we know what the conditions are the Gov would accept).

What would be the worst outcome for us if even with Kobold leveraging, they could not get everyone to agree to terms.

 

[Ancient]

A screenshot from the PMT resource upgrade this morning.

See the // ....

Let's not forget what we have

 

[Hodlandwin69]

A screenshot from the PMT resource upgrade this morning.

View attachment 84349

See the // ....

Let's not forget what we have

It's a shame they put the break in the y axis

 

[Thaz]

It's a shame they put the break in the y axis

What can you do? We're too big

 

[Winenut]

I thought $10 was the anchoring price and $12 was the meme price with the f@#$ Zinjin bonus?
Not that I can be bothered going back 2167 pages to confirm.

Ohh okay Mr Smartypants

Yes you are most likely on the money there with the Zijin premium

For the record you actually only had to go back 2166 pages to confirm it....

 

[Frank]

Update at icsid page:

Case Details | ICSID

t.co

https://x.com/anonymous_seeu/status/1922036518635376969

 

[Winenut]

Ai summary

Let's break down this statement:
* "The Tribunal issues a decision...": This means that a formal panel or body (the Tribunal) has made an official ruling. Tribunals are often set up to resolve specific types of disputes.
* "...on the Respondent’s request to address the objections to jurisdiction as a preliminary question...":
* The Respondent is the party against whom a claim or dispute has been brought.
* The objections to jurisdiction are arguments made by the Respondent that the Tribunal does not have the authority or legal power to hear the case.
* To address these objections as a preliminary question means the Respondent wanted the Tribunal to decide whether it even had the right to hear the case before getting into the details of the actual dispute ("the merits").
* "...as a result, the objections to jurisdiction are joined to the merits of the dispute.":
* Joined to the merits means that instead of deciding on the jurisdictional objections first, the Tribunal has decided to consider the objections at the same time as it considers the substance or core issues of the dispute ("the merits").
In simpler terms:
The party being sued (the Respondent) asked the Tribunal to first decide if the Tribunal even had the authority to hear the case. The Tribunal said "no" to this request. Instead, they will deal with the question of their authority at the same time as they consider the actual arguments of the dispute.


Essentially, the Tribunal has decided not to resolve the "can we even hear this case?" question upfront, but to consider it alongside the "what actually happened?" question.
Do you have any other parts of this statement you'd like me to clarify?

Personally I would have preferred if they just came out and said......

"Nope.......lé fuck you. We have jurisdiction"

 

[Dazmac66]

Great — here’s how joining jurisdiction with the merits can affect the case timeline and strategy:

1. Timeline Impact​

• Longer process: Because the Tribunal won’t decide right away whether it even has the authority to hear the case, the proceedings will move forward into the full dispute phase. This adds time and cost for both sides.
• No early dismissal: If the Tribunal had ruled on jurisdiction first and found it had no authority, the case could have ended early. Now, the parties must go through the entire case before knowing if the Tribunal can even rule on it.

2. Strategic Impact​

• Higher legal costs: Both sides must now prepare for a full hearing, covering both jurisdiction and the actual dispute.
• Leverage shifts: The Respondent (who raised the jurisdiction objection) loses a chance to stop the case early. This might give the Claimant more confidence moving forward.
• More complex arguments: Lawyers must now present legal and factual arguments together, which can make the case more complicated.

In summary: the Tribunal’s decision to delay the jurisdiction question means the case is moving into full gear, which could benefit the side pushing to have their claims fully heard.

 

[Frank]

And how does that reconcile with the US claiming they can only get involved if all the bullshit and shenanigans stops? By starting from a foundation of bullshit shenanigans? That's why the ONLY way this works is for AVZ to AGREE. That's what's in Nigel's statement, and that's what's got to happen.

Trump is already breaking global alliances and global economies. What do you think is going to happen to trust in the US and the entire global trade system it underpins if news comes out that they did a dodgy deal with a corrupt government to steal a project from an ALLY. It would shatter what last little bit of trust remained that the US was a country people could trust to do business with.

Not a chance. Not even with Trump.

This thing doesn't happen without AVZ being on board and that doesnt happen without a deal that's substantially better than our prospects with CATH.

There is a win-win-win situation on the table here if the US and DRC aren't too arrogant to take it.

There is a win-win-win situation on the table here if the US and DRC aren't too arrogant to take it.

 

[Skar]

A screenshot from the PMT resource upgrade this morning.

View attachment 84349

See the // ....

Let's not forget what we have

Thats actually very interesting in and of itself... I remember the days when we used to just be an Asterisk on every competitor's investor presentation *AVZ omitted as an outlier.

The US now see us as being in scope.

 

[Pokok]

If your intent is good, welcome back!
Perhaps you can understand my suspicioun from my point of view?
Lots of new emerged posters spreading misinformation and trying to create discord!

To be fair he joined in 2002

 

[Pokok]

"Help me, Obi-Nigel, you're my only hope."
View attachment 84346
View attachment 84347
View attachment 84348

I take a cap with $12 on it thank you