Ann: Disclosure Clarifications - AFR Article, page-138

You wrote in bold (my color for highlighting)

1) "the fact that the ASX watchdog has not pulled up AVZ on any of these supposed stories speaks volumes"


2) "Fact is despite the ASX limited resources they are very aware of AVZ and whats going on.....these rolling suspensions would have kept AVZ front and centre in the ASX eyes .

Re 2 - How is that a fact rather than a supposition?

What you appear to be supposing might be reasonable (or not) but without evidence of its certainty that pretty much anyone could see by looking at such evidence impartially I don't think it can be accurately classed as a fact.


3) "Here is the paragraph you need

In response to the findings of the DRC General Inspectorate of Finance, AVZ confirms:
• AVZ acquired valid and legal title to the 60% of shares issued in Dathcom, including, for the
avoidance of doubt, as a consequence of the waiver of any rights of Cominiere and Dathomir
under the Dathcom JVA by virtue of their entry into that same agreement;
• following AVZ’s acquisition of its initial 60% of shares issued in Dathcom, AVZ performed the
funding obligations under the Dathcom JVA;

Fairly clear i think"

So in their announcement AVZ confirms those things. They don't say there that the DRC General Inspectorate of Finance is doing the confirming its AVZ itself.

A can say to B I confirm X but its up to B to decide if the confirmation actually amounts to a confirmation or merely looks like an assertion or an opinion.

Without AVZ providing evidence to independently confirm their conclusions what difference would it make if instead AVZ has simply said at the blue bit, in response to what the DRC GIF says, AVZ now asserts ?

Clearly AVZ's announcements are facts about AVZ's position, but where opinions are expressed in the announcements like that "AVZ acquired valid and legal title" etc - its one thing to assert that and another to demonstrate it with argument. I would say in the DRC it would be the law of the DRC that would ultimately determine what is valid and legal title.

I did, after seeng CheckRaiseFolds comment look again at youtube video posted by qball to a twitter link.

That youtube video appears to be Jule Alente speaking on the 9th of December. But I don't understand his french and was reading only the subtitles. It seemed to me that he was describing the situation of the JV partners - Dathomir and Cominere and AVZ from a certain point in time forward - it didn't seem that he was taking a position on the whether AVZ had legal title in fact.

I'm open to seeing any evidence in any video where taken in context it appears that the IGF head does assert that AVZ has valid legal title in its his opinion.