Your words : "Avz are in material breach of the Tia agreement...

Your words : "Avz are in material breach of the Tia agreement and if it’s called by Cath the cost / penalty would wipe out the last reported bank balance". Again, I thought I just proved to you in the previous response that AVZ IS NOT IN MATERIAL BREACH. What don't you understand ?
Your words : "it has since been sued for damages elsewhere". Are you referring to the Jin Cheng/Cominiere counter ICC Arbitration proceedings that they launched in May? They can't receive "damages" unless they own something. They don't. So nothing to see here.
Your words : "the Tia with Cath is conditional on dathcom obtaining a mining lic". I think previous speakers have cleared this up by stating that the TIA waived the mining license decree for acceptance.
Your words : "they can’t get a lic", "they can’t satisfy the primary condition of the Tia agreement", "they are probably insolvent". I am assuming that your use of "can't" means that it will never happen, impossible, unobtainable. AVZ BOD are using all the tools in the shed to try and resolve the issues. "Can't" is not one of them. "probably insolvent" is another vague note from you. You got me here on that one. I don't know how to respond to that?????
IMO, CATH has nothing to lose by extending the TIA. If AVZ/Dathcom get the license, they will be acquiring 24%. If AVZ/Dathcom doesn't get the license, they will make a bid to whoever gets the mining license.
I'm no corporate business guru, but, if CATH does decide that it will not extend and want their penalty money, AVZ may have had some type of insurance policy put on the deal that would soften the blow. I don't know. Just thinking out loud. Maybe someone else on the forum with more experience in this could weigh in?