Ann: Continuation of Suspension from Quotation, page-103

Just FYI:

Continuous Disclosure obligations still apply regardless of the company being in suspension:
ASX Listing Rule 3.1 - 3.1B, Guidance Note 8 ~ 3.23 Suspended entities;
++ Entities whose securities have been suspended from trading continue to be subject to the Listing Rules, including their continuous disclosure obligations under Listing Rule 3.1.⁸⁸
https://www.asx.com.au/documents/rules/Guidance_Note_8.pdf

Compliance with Listing Rule 3.1 is critical to the integrity and efficiency of the ASX market and other markets that trade in ASX quoted securities or derivatives of those securities.³ Reflecting this, Parliament has given the rule statutory force in section 674 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).⁴ A listed entity which breaches Listing Rule 3.1 may also breach that section and this can attract serious legal consequences for the entity and its officers.
https://download.asic.gov.au/media/4531456/rg73-published-31-october-2017.pdf

Most exchanges have the same or similar rules to be admitted, as AVZ are suspended, trying to list on the NSX for example they would be ineligible because of that suspension. IMO, I would suspect that would be the case for trying to list on other exchanges.

It isn't the fault of the ASX, it lays squarely at the feet of AVZ's management as indicated, they cannot comply with the listing rules to being re-admitted to quotation. Subtle, but noticeable re: "AVZ's securities are likely to remain suspended until ASX is satisfied about AVZ's compliance with the Listing Rules, including Listing Rule 3.1."
~ the Listing Rules can be a jungle to decipher, but AVZ's non compliance expands over multiple listing rules, multiple sections of the Corporations Act and the ASX Settlement Operating Rules.
++ But I am somewhat at a loss to why AVZ didn't/couldn't use Listing Rule 3.1A ~ exception to Listing Rule 3.1

The suspension is no longer at the request of the Company;
17.3 ASX may at anytime suspend an entity's ⁺securities, or class of them, from ⁺quotation if in ASX's opinion any of the following applies.
~ 17.3.1 The entity is unable or unwilling to comply with, or breaks, a listing rule.

The Company's obligation further extend in relation to approved CS facility subregister system;
Listing Rule: 8.1;
~ The entity must comply with the operating rules of the ⁺approved CS facility under which the ⁺securities of the entity, or CDIs issued over those ⁺securities are approved.
CHESS is an approved CS facilitator subregister system. An entity must comply with the ASX Settlement Operating Rules if any of its securities are CHESS approved securities.

Add to the complexity of it, the Reserve Bank of Australia carries out an annual assessment of the ASX clearing and settlement (CS) facilities, any recommendations arising from the assessment are monitored by the RBA & ASIC. In (part) of the summary, the bank (RBA) concluded that the ASX's CS facilities conduct their affairs in a way that promotes overall stability in the Australian Financial system, in addition the bank also expects ASX to take a more proactive role in ensuring its regulatory obligations as the license owner of the CS facility are being met.

How can shareholders maintain their support of management for their failure to abide by the rules and regulations of both the governing bodies, being the ASX via Listing Rules/Settlement Operating Rules and ASIC via the Corporations Act, and preferring to blame the ASX (for picking on the Company) and/or some sell newspapers sensationalism reporting and/or the short sellers and/or 3rd parties and/or confidential information leaks.
~ The Company were issued an "Aware" letter, to explain themselves -- further FYI, an aware letter is generally an action by the ASX after receiving enquiries and/or complaints about a company and not the ASX deciding to just "pick" on (in this instance) AVZ.
~ the Company were forced to respond after the AFR article
~ No outcome to the engagement of a Cyber Security expert, did the leak come from within?
++ based on the Company's clarification re; "the AFR's two articles of 8 February 2023 appear to be based, in part, on legal advice and a report or draft report prepared for the Company's lawyers .... (sic)" ~ prepared by whom? but more concerning the mention of "draft report" -- to mean it was an incomplete and/or not circulated document?

Unfortunately, enquiries and/or complaints can be generated by a plethora of avenues and not necessarily driven with the best intent.
Personally, I think it is a low bow being drawn if shareholders and/or the company make suggestions of hostile third parties being behind the queries that lead to the Aware Letter being generated but it appears to be a very thorough and intimate line of queries dating back to 2019 Dathomir SPA!

Regardless of all the distractions, legal positioning over % ownership, cyber attacks or information leaks, the companies main focus should be obtaining the mining licence whether it is as a 60% majority JV owner of 75% is irrelevant? or could be deemed irrelevant if the way moving forward means only having 60% majority stake in the largest hard rock / high grade deposit globally? versus how many years of project delay due to legal battles and $ cost to do so and further decimation of shareholder wealth creation?

Cheers

Disclosure: non holder but watching with interest the difficulties of investing in Africa and the possible impact to the overall future supply/demand of Lithium with the delays to the Manoro Project, that may impact future pricing that would be beneficial to other Li producers with the (lack of) supply comingfrom Manoro.
FYI: ARE is an example of the real threat to companies with tenements in an African jurisdiction.
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-zambian-minister-of-mines-refuses-lumwana-west-appeal.7271115/