Ann: Disclosure Clarifications - AFR Article, page-78

I do understand what you are saying. But a Joint Venture is a form of contract. Joint Venture terms are contract terms.

In Australia they used to teach "you can't contract outside the law". Two heroin dealers can make an agreement between themselves but the law won't enforce it if dealer A wants to sued dealer B for part payment of for failing to go to local mob boss C for a sitdown and ruling as per the terms of their agreement between themselves.

The local mob boss might care about the arbitration clause - but if A or B take their contract to a federal court for enforcement the terms of the arbitration clause are going to be irrelevant.

The terms of the contract themselves have to be themselves not unlawful.

As I understand if you have a JV in Australia that contains an arbitration term (i.e. we agree to go to a arbitrator first) and a party takes that contract to a court then the court will generally require the parties follow the arbitration term first - its a term of the contract - so that fits with what you are saying.

But if there was another law that before JVs could be made at all, or that before part shares in a JV could be exchanged some valuation had to be done (and this does seem to be suggested in the English translation of the IGF report I read on AVZs website) and that was a law of Australia or the DRC that law would take priority over the terms of the contract.

Contracts are important - JVs are important, but they can't logically supercede the other laws of a country without the country giving up some sovereignty - which they do not do.

So was AVZ allowed to be brought in as a JV partner at all under DRC law way back when Klaus was in charge of AVZ without their being some kind of valuation? I don't know.

In my opinion, giving AVZ the benefit of the doubt to the maximum extent, they should have at least told shareholders that a JV partner had had a ruling they were in disagreement with go their way and that it was in the company's opinion wrong and they were planning to appeal it and expecting to be successful - reasonable people would expect that.

But how can you be in a country and have a ruling go against you by a court in that country (even if its wrong in your genuine opinion and in fact and in law ultimately) and not tell shareholders and the market at least that at the time. Its still a court in the country in which you are operating and hoping to continue operating.