AVZ (ASX) Ann: Issue of two new Ministerial Decrees

Originally posted by combaste: ↑

Hello investors.
I'm reading some big misconceptions here.
I'm trying to show this correctly, process by process.

1. The two notices of January 28, 2023 were issued because the notice of May 2022 is inadmissible under the Mining Code. The property was divided under the old decree and the mining license was only granted for a portion. At the same time, other companies have applied for the second part. This is illegal under the Mining Act.
Result: We are "go" again. The initial situation is restored. No more and no less.

2. Do we have 60% or 75%?
This is a completely different process and will be clarified in the ICC proceedings in Paris, which AVZ initiated against Dathomir. (The only question is whether the sales contracts are valid 10% +5%)If we win we have 75%If we lose we have 60%So that has to be evaluated individually and we will get a clear result.

3. What about Zijing vs Cominiere?
This is a completely different process that AVZ has nothing to do with to begin with.Zijing has launched an ICC case against Cominiere in Paris because Cominiere sold 15% of Zijing's shares, although they are not and cannot do so as AVZ has a right of first refusal.Win Zijing, they have 15% and Cominiere 10%If Cominiere wins, Cominiere has 25% and can fulfill AVZ's right of first refusal for another 15%.10% always goes to the DRC from the state company Cominiere!

I have deliberately omitted any mention of corruption, ethics, morals, etc.
Because those are the facts. The law only cares about the facts.You have to look at it completely abstractly and soberly.

If all laws are followed according to the known facts, AVZ should end up owning at least 75% (AVZ vs. Dathomir).
What happens between Zijin and Cominiere is more difficult to assess and we cannot assess.

The AVZ is expropriated requires a plausible justification. It's not as easy as you think. To our knowledge, AVZ has always behaved correctly. There is currently nothing to suggest expropriation.

Greetings from Germany
Combaste

Expand

The FACTS are the original decrees were cancelled because of the disputes in Dathcom and NOT due to incorrect tenement split or any other assumption. It’s there in black and white. To assume otherwise is just trying to put a positive spin on a sad situation.

With no decree in place and no mining licence in sight, does AVZ have any reason to stay in suspension? After all the original suspension is due to mining rights but AVZ are nowhere closer to mining as no new decree has been issued. I wonder what’s going to happen if the asx disallows a further extension. Shorters will have a field day. The so called interest they have been paying will be pittance compared to the payday they will have.