Ann: Extension to Voluntary Suspension, page-253

Outcomes on ICC arbitrations I understand to be non-binding and non-enforceable in foreign jurisdictions. At least that is what I have read from other posters here, the process is not something I have researched. as they are irrelevant unless AVZ agrees to take part in the process or a process commences without their attendance.

AVZ believe the Zijin ownership claims to have no merit. I would expect the AVZ stance is that a sale did not occur, and that 33.4m of Zijin funds were fraudulently obtained using deceptive conduct by the director general of Cominiere and others.

IF as another poster commented (and I do agree with them) that Zijin have a clear understanding they will not succeed in Congolese courts and so have gone abroad to the ICC for this, a far better use of time for AVZ would be focusing legal resource on Congolese legal process than distracting themselves with a non-binding arbitration court, which would use precious time and resource (for which Zijin we know has far more time because they have more money to hire more resource).

If this is the case, Zijins' days of operating any new resource may be over, and any renewals of license may be in peril.

Worst case, AVZ could lose some or all rights under ICC process, which gives credibility to Zijin (when AVZ believes they have none).
If Zijin fail at ICC, they could turn to the Congolese courts at that time, having had the entire period of time the arbitration took to find any potentially corruptible members of the court system to swing an outcome in their favor.

Going to the ICC is not a requirement, it would give some acknowledgement by responding that they have some validity in being at Manono, and it would hurt AVZ financially by adding to legal costs and taking focus away from our management.