Interesting that someone who goes by the handle of “Shareholder”...

Interesting that someone who goes by the handle of “Shareholder” actually holds no share, a quirk of fate no doubt.

1. Given the rumor and innuendo spread about this engagement, detailing the reimbursement nature of the agreement and the $5000 limit on incidental expenses shows a level of governance. I don’t think $5000 on incidentals would be a huge impost on cashflow.

2. Addressing the AFR article is appropriate given the misinformation is being used to undermine AVZ business in the DRC. Advising that the information was confidential, privileged and not approved for release by AVZ indicates that the AFR have likely obtained some information by nefarious means and possibly published an article without getting complete information or asking for comment by AVZ prior to publishing, Does this speak the lack of professionalism of the AFR and journalistic integrity?

3. Timing, really you read something into this? If they respond on the day, the get accused of not doing their homework before responding, if the publish on Monday or later they get accused of not keeping shareholders informed. Your accusation here seams to be fear mongering.

4. Cyber security seems to be where they beleive the leak has occurred, or in other words a Cyber attack, Given the full force of attacks in social media, paid for commen5 media, bribing of officials etc and the power of those who wish to destroy AVZ and its business in the DRC, I suspect it may be quite difficult to track who done it. AVZ has governance and it includes non disclosure agreements etc, the fact they can trace it to a cyber attack/ breach informs shareholder that they are onto the issue and closing any breach.

Doing business in the DRC is risky, thus the large risk reward equation, such is the way of the world. I hope AVZ continue to defend their reputation and share information with shareholders.