I referred previously as an example to the FAR vs Conoco Phillips case.
FAR lost that case before the ICC against Woodside Petroleum, because CP made sure the FROR did not apply by selling the holding company in which the part of the lease was registered.
Cominiere could not sell 15% of its holding in Dathcom to Zijin due to FROR rules.
Neither could AVZ sell 24% of its holding in Dathcom to Cath for exactly the same reason.
Therefore the Dathcom holding was registered in the GLH company's name.
Cominiere tried a different tack by saying 13359 is now not owned by Dathcom, by disowning GLH, but by Cominiere and therefore they could do with 13359 anything they liked.
AVZ disputes this through arbitration.
Dathomir, as another circus act, tried to deregister Dathcom, after they sold their holding in Dathcom to AVZ/GLH.
How can you legally deregister a company, in which you have a minority ownership, or no ownership at all?
AVZ's arrangement this time with Cath is not that they sell a percentage of Dathcom, but they sell a percentage of the GLH company to Cath, in a way that AVZ maintains the majority ownership of GLH and circumvents the FROR rules written in the Dathcom JV.
GLH, the company in which AVZ's holding of Dathcom is registered, its holding in Dathcom does not change at all.
GLH had and still has majority ownership of Dathcom.
Cath does not own a direct slice of Dathcom, but a minority slice of GLH, giving it an indirect ownership of 30.5% of Dathcom.
IMO
Expand