Ann: Manono Project Licence, page-81

From what I can see AVZ have done nothing wrong, and have never had any type of dealings with the Mauritian company, so cannot be responsible for any action that other parties have caused MMCS strategic1. MMCS are suing the wrong party but know they will get nowhere with anyone else. Of course all IMO but I'm pretty sure Pcaruso has this entirely correct, the court will have no option but to throw it out.

However I see MMCS strategic 1's mission just seems to be to stall, nothing further, so I would hope that AVZ's barristers ask the court to put a ban on MMCS from being able to sue AVZ for anything as they are just being a "vexatious litigant". I think it is called.

Even here in Australia, if you hold a tenement, but fail to pay your rent or spend the appropriate money on a bit of ground, you can lose the tenement, then if someone else comes along, pays for the tenement, and discovers something great, the company that lost the tenement has no comeback on the new company at all. Their only grounds for grievance would be against the govt department that gave out the tenement to someone new. Even then they are likely to get nowhere as the govt dept would have only cancelled the prior holding in accordance with the law, so you would get nowhere.

I'm surprised we are still this low this late in the day, and after 65M traded on ASX!! I was expecting a bounce. What next??