Risk versus Reward, page-76

I merely informed you that your statement "You can’t get any more final" is obviously incorrect and inaccurate. Your comment suggested that just because a contract was signed and monies paid, that the terms of the contract were fulfilled. Contracts are rarely that simple and this one wasn't according to AVZ own statements. Contracts often contain many clauses including in this case conditions requisite. In this case AVZ notified the market when they announced the deal of the Dathmir EGM ratification condition requisite. Later in direct response to ASX questioning AVZ acknowledged that this had not been met. Their explanation was a little concerning as it contradicted their previous statement.

AVZ blamed Dathomir for that condition not being met so AVZ says they waived it and moved to complete anyway. Its not obvious that they had the right to simply waive a condition of the contract. Such condition was likely there due to a Dathcom partnership requirement so its hard to see how one partner just had the right to waive it. If AVZ had that right there is no logical reason for it to be in this contract in the first place.

Anyhow, if the EGM had occurred prior to the completion date and the ratification had occurred as per the condition requisite then that would most certainly have been a much cleaner and less ambiguous situation than what occurred. That would be a lot more final than the actual process which you described which included skipped steps and some degree of legal ambiguity. Your comments failed to even acknowledge these skipped steps when you said "You can’t get any more final".

I hope that it does get worked out in AVZ favour as Dathomir don't look like they have acted honorably however AVZs explanation for this to the ASX sounded a little stretched and based on a view that there was an implied obligation to do something. What you and I here in Australia may think a reasonable expectation for implied obligations may not necessarily be taken the same way in other cultures and this is the risk as I see it. International courts need to consider these discrepancies in making their determinations and recommendations.

Its possible that AVZs own communications to its shareholders were flawed or its responses to the ASX more opaque than necessary for some reason. I'm simply pointing out that according to the comments they they have made to the market there are questions which I have little doubt the market will never, ever know the answers to, even after this is all resolved.