I'm not entirely sure you are asking about
this 15% but I think you may be.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/drc-chinese-australian-battle-control-093000599.html
In case the source url is mangled here is the title.
In theDRC, a Chinese-Australian battle for control of a massive untappedlithium lode
28May 2022 (((- this article originally came from the southchina morning post)))says-
To quote from that article (my underlining) -
“Lastyear, AVZ said it paid DathomirMining Resources Sarl US$20million for its remaining 15 per cent stake in the project, takingits total shareholding to 75 per cent. The company, owned bylong-time Chinese investor in the Congo CongMaohuai, sued in the Congoto annul the deal and won. AVZ'ssubsidiary is appealing against the decision, according toMiller.”
Earlierthe same article identified Greg Miller, as "an analyst at BenchmarkMineral Intelligence."
Do I trust yahoofinance got this article from the south china morning post? – yes
Do I trust the southchina morning post writer got the comment from Greg Miller? – yes
Do I trust GregMillar – I don’t know the man to trust him but I regard BenchmarkMineral Intelligence as a generally reputable source so I’minclined to believe Millar is being truthful.
So I’m inclined tobelieve Cong Maohuai (of Dathomir) sued in the Congo to annul thedeal (for 15%) and won (in the DRC at some level of the court systemwhich is not the highest level so which is unlikely to be the end of the matter). And that AVZ’ssubsidiary would, naturally, have appealed.
I’m unawarecurrently of AVZ having updated the market on the “Dathomir Claim”other than what was written on page 3 of the 4 May 2022 announcement.
That announcement certainly did not explicitly state that Dathomir had succeeded inannulling a deal for 15% when it discussed the Dathomir Claim on 4 May 2022.
-----
From page 3 of 5 of AVZ’s announcement of 4 May 2022 headedMinisterial Decree to Award the Mining Licence Manono Lithium and tinProject
“Mediaspeculation
AVZ makes referenceto recent media speculation in respect of several matters inconnection with AVZ’s interest in the Manono Project, which theCompany considers spurious and immaterial, including:
*A reference to a decision by ‘Le Tribunal de Grande Instance’ inthe DRC (Tribunal Decision) in respect of a claim by DathomirMining Resources SARL regarding the validity of a share certificateand an extract of a shareholder’s registry from Dathcom (
DathomirClaim).
* A claim thatCominiere has transferred a 15% interest in Dathcom to Jin ChengMining Company Limited (Cominiere Transfer Claim).
TheCompany notes that the Tribunal Decision does not purport to (nordoes it, in fact or under DRC law) have any effect on:
*AVZ’s 75% equity interest in the Manono Project, to which AVZ holdsgood legal title; or
*the sale and purchase agreements under which AVZ acquired thatinterest (which AVZ has duly performed and completed and which hasnot been terminated or annulled by any order, letter or otherwise).
Rather,the Tribunal Decision is:
*in respect of proceedings that have been pursued vexatiouslyand without foundation or merit, and towhich neither AVZ nor AVZI is a party;
* subject to anappeal which has the effect, under DRC law, of suspending theTribunal Decision; and
* thesubject of a request on 1 February 2022 by the DRC Minister ofJustice, that the DRC
General Inspectorate of Judicial andPenitentiary Services, examine the case and that, pending theexamination, nothing be done on the case.In relation to theCominiere Transfer Claim, the Company notes any such purportedtransfer would be restricted under the terms of the existingshareholders agreement between the Dathcom shareholders andaccordingly, any purported transfer of the 15% interest to a thirdparty would be a material breach of the pre-emptive rights containedin the existing Shareholders Agreement owed to AVZI, invalid and ofno force or effect.
The Company hasconsidered each of the
Dathomir Claim and Cominiere Transfer Claim indetail and believes them to each be spurious in nature, withoutmerit, containing fundamental and material errors, and have nosubstance or foundation in fact or law. The Company is continuing totake all necessary actions to resist these vexatious and meritlessclaims and to protect Dathcom’s and its interests, and the Companywill consider all options including engaging with the DRC Governmentand seeking international law remedies. "
I'm not currently a holder of AVZ. I was formerly. I put a lot of research time in when I was - which is why I remain interested now - but I am potentially out of date now.
Nonetheless it is one thing, a natural enough thing for the company to describe claims as spurious and without merit but its another to have a court or a tribunal say the same thing. So far it seems the DRC courts haven't definitively ruled on any question as to whether the Dathomir sale of 15% to AVZ was valid or not. There seems to me to be some sort of reliable sources (the link above) suggesting that the DRC legal system found initially for Dathomir and against AVZ on a 15% transfer of ownership have not occurred- yet AVZ has written an announcement that seems to make out AVZ wasn't even a party.
