Ann: Disclosure Clarifications - AFR Article, page-71

I'm looking at the excerpt from the AFR you've provided and assuming its correct.

So, on that basis, the AFR is saying "AVZ further said on Thursday it didn't disclose
a December 2021 DRC court ruling related to Dathomir's 15 per cent ownership rights, as it also considered the ruling "spurious" with no foundation in fact or law".

So AFR is saying "AVZ didn't consider a DRC court ruling related to Dathomir's 15% ownership rights as having foundation in fact or law"

Something is clearly wrong there. A court ruling has to have some foundation in law or to be presumed to have until such time as it is amended or overruled on appeal. It might be appealed. A court ruling might be incorrect on law. But it still has to be overruled.

If AVZ had a court ruling in the DRC go against it, even if it thought the ruling wrong, or the judge corrupt and so it would be overturnable on appeal, it was still a court ruling, in my opinion it should have been disclosed as material because it goes to something reasonable investors would likely to think is material to the share price.

Even a wrong ruling being made (and so having to be overturned) goes to in-country risk and extended timelines potentially as compared to if no such ruling had been made.

So a person can grant AVZ might be right in thinking for instance a lower DRC court might have erred at law and made a bad ruling, but its hard to also think that that isn't a least reportable to shareholders as being something a reasonable person would consider to be material. IMO.