Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-94

Where did i suggest AVZ wouldn’t comply with the “request to return”?


I don't understand. I don't think you did or if you did I didn't think you did.

Yibin could not enforce such a clause against a third party in possession of AVZ provided information.

No but Yibin and AVZ are parties to the agreement. If AVZ didn't request AVZ's info back from others that might have been using it to do due diligence as per (ii) - that's a breach and Yibin would only have to demonstrate that to have a basis for damages against AVZ.

"Not sure of your actual intent with this dialogue ...is it your dislike ofthe politics and process in the DRCKEthe value of the deal on offeror are you part of Hauyou or other price suppressing holders which see this deal as thwarting their own ambitions.or just honing your obvious debating skillscheers"

I do think the deal is a bad deal. It seems to lock out the non-chinese and so to reduce the future value of AVZ shares compared to what they could have been without it and if the non-chinese hadn't been excluded. Also it seems like Nigel has struck it prematurely.

We were supposed to be funded to DFS.I thought that NF has done a good deal when he'd managed to get an extra 5% from Dathomir quite some time ago - perhaps his first good deal - but that deal until the Dathomir 5% were paid for wasn't really complete and NF has managed to get that deal (paying for Dathomir's 5% which he had plenty of time left to do - tangled up in this one along with an offtake that we haven't seen the price of.

I think Dathomir has under delivered or just not delivered all the way so far in its relationship with AVZ. The road to manono they were going to facilitate isn't ready. Another 6 months it seems to before even the unsealed stage is done.

I'd like to know who is behind Dathomir - I'd like the benefificial owner - who AVZ is dealing with when they talk to Dathomir to be public knowledge because I think it would be better for the share price and for the confidence of non chinese to have more transparency.

As I understand AVZ can trace the beneficial ownership of Dathomir if it wants to - it might cost it about $3847 (from memory) to do that - but I think that at this stage that would be money well spent.

My intent in talking about the deal is to depeen understanding about the deal by shareholders who are going to vote on it. I was encouraged that there were sufficient shareholders interested in getting value for themselves to have delivered a first strike on the remuneration report.

I had begun to think my fellow AVZ shareholders were in the aggregate a bunch of dills willing to pay for stuff they could never see the evidence of - like roads and power plants and like performance of directors in advance.

And I'd made the same mistake as them.

With more transparency and better management AVZ shares could be worth a lot more. But it will take smarter behavior from the shareholder base with respect to looking after their own interests to realise the potential value in their shares. In my opinion.

On this forum at the moment I've got Deboss refusing to answer a basic question (but attacking my motives - as if they even matter in comparison with understanding- are the terms of 1.2(c) currenly in effect or not.

Had he cared enough to find out and had he answered truthfully my simple yes or no question that they were he'd had helped readers of the forum have a more fact based understanding. But it seems he prefers to keep matters of fact as matters of opinion. He prefers shareholders more ignorant than they need to be. I want shareholders informed and empowered with better understanding. But I don't know that that is the motives of others - perhaps they just want to offload their shares to greater fools than themselves sooner rather than later.