The mining license is issued to Dathcom, not AVZ and AVZ by the worst chance would still own 60% at the moment (after CATH transaction, it would be decreased to 36%).
So this sentence would not stand 'Within that is legal ownership - you wouldnt award a license to someone that doesnt own it right?'.
AVZ owns the majority of Dathcom right now.
If the Dathomir Claim is 'nonsense', why would its name be listed as 'associates' on a DRC official website?
If you think Zi Jin steal the 15% and the DRC website shows its name correctly (and AVZ is trying to take it back), would it be possible that Dathomir's name is correctly listed as well?
I hope everything goes the way you said but it just does not explain the large decline today.
'Shorters' and 'Manipulation' would not bring AVZ down by this much.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- AVZ
- Running discussion on SP
Running discussion on SP, page-70086
Featured News
Add AVZ (ASX) to my watchlist
Currently unlisted public company.
The Watchlist
EQN
EQUINOX RESOURCES LIMITED.
Zac Komur, MD & CEO
Zac Komur
MD & CEO
SPONSORED BY The Market Online