AVZ (ASX) Avz 2023 agm link for streaming meeting to shareholders

Originally posted by Roon-Aus: ↑

So we started as being told that we aren’t allowed to record or even keep phones on. Everyone was meant to keep their phones off which was brought into question by several phones during the session – including Michael Carrick, who’s phone kept going off
Quorum reached
It was mentioned that NF doesn’t need to give an overview because AVZ have given wide disclosure ands because we expect question ‘time’
Question from Fat tail lawyer about 20m securing facility - but they haven’t actually secured anything. Just a piece of paper subject from due diligence, and with a break fee of 1mNF - 20m will be provided, 2.5 time multiple payment. We tried with 5 companies to negotiate, and locke in the end was ready with terms that were attractive to us with their detailed DD. Locke is committed to push through with their DD
Michael Carrick = question about breaches of the JVA. What breaches do these have and what is the purpose of dealing with 6 arbitrations and what is that going to result in
NF – prepared strategy on litigation is about getting rid of disputes as soon as possible on terms that’s fair and reasonable.We’ll get 225 squares and get a mining licence over same based on 4 favourable results.
Dathomir have no standing, same on the in country proceedings against Grame Johnson.
The Cominere-Jin Cheng offer breached JVA on several ways including the ROFO.Dathcom has strong prospects. Jin Cheng has no recourse to ICC.
The Jin Cheng outcome will weight heavily in outcome of other international arbitrations
Michael Carrick - why did Dathcom file a relinquishment offer, and why did AJN immediately apply from this (NF shouldn’t reply). Pre-prepared answer then read out by john Clarke about MMGA. Point of order by Carrick, Clarke made claims on claims of 13359 and AJN, fat tails commentary is false. Not so well answered, but moved on.
The MoM bringing together of the tenements claims that we haven’t rescinded any rights and that everything should be together.15775 with Manono Lithium you need to refer to the announcement that this is bullshit essentially and that ICC/ICSID will confirm our holding.
Fat Tail’s commentary doesn’t including Cominere’s transfer which doesn’t have a legal basis. These matters will be ‘ventilated’ with ICSID and its not appropriate to talk about this now. We don’t submit any transfer of this tenement from or to Cominere, this needs to be assessed through international arbitrations through which we’ve done emergency injunctio
ns.
Its impossible for us to both hold title over this land, and the company maintains that the detractors do not hold Any title. Pursuant to ICSID and ICC
Nigel Ferguson has no knowledge of a meeting of the AJN board through which they were allegedly trying to take this area. NF thought this was only about other assets in the DRC.

Within learning this about their attempt Nigel sent his resignation to the AJN board as director

Michael Carrick continued to question NF on the relinquishment of the northern tenement, CROWD GOES WILD, tells MC to sit down. Everyone was yelling at him to shut up. Chairman JC says Carrick has been disruptive. Claps from the crowd.

A Question was raised on emergency injunction not stopping Zijin or Cominere, and thus why we should expect more emergency injunctions to change things. Basically that they will push through, so what else are AVZ trying to do to try make Zijin/Cominiere not have a a ground reality.AVZ acknowledges limited success in domestic proceedings, cant get a fair day in court. We get okay in emergency reliefs.Cominere must not exploit indirectly or directly by ICC ruling as such ruling as the tribunal looks at it. fine of 50k and now 100k. ICC vindicated AVz’s position in preventing Jin Cheng, and we have made it not confidential after AVZs callHowever pointed out that this doesn’t change anything on the ground.

ICSID is the big thing as per NFFailure to procure the ML and launch of ICSID catalyst for start of MOU which is the biggest step towards ML and. Arbitrations are necessary in protecting interests

AVZ is in a far better position by having the force of a potential adverse finding in the arbitrate proceeding giving negotiation leverage and makes the government take AVZ’s position more seriously. Trying to enforce its rights is difficult but otherwise wouldn’t be needed.

Tight timetables are being sought to deliver results, and AVZ are trying to gain an outcome at the earliest opportunity by mutual agreement. This is why we are pursuing an MoU.

AVZ has strong grounds to suspect it holds strong prospects of success on all four major issues.

Binding locke capital should give enough liquidity to go through all litigation to its conclusions, and they were the best of all 5 funders sought.

Question on what DD did they do about Locke capital’s track record in abritation. (NF shuts this one down, he just said they fund it they don’t do it, so didn’t answer (this led to a clapfrom the crowd). Poor answer somewhat but NF said he believed they were a right fit for AVZ

Question about high rate of spent and the bonuses given to the directors and managers, poor optics.Kinda a Bullshit response given by JC about fixed remuneration about assessing rates on an annual basis and keeping the best people, making sure everyone is aligned. Attract and retain the best people. Gott a be competitive domestically and internationally. NF and Ben Cohen spent 246 days on business travel mostly in DRC so they should get a huge bonus, somehow as if they didn’t think DRC was part of the job description.It’s in line with market practiceFollow up question from someone about 1 million of pay to NF and others, ignored essentially.

NF – as spiel about the board spending its reserves in a responsible manner. Otherwise we’d have everything goneAVZ cannot rely on domestic proceedings and consequentially, we need ICSID and ICC. This costs money. We are cost cutting where we can

Michael Carrick – chairman didn’t answer the question about bonuses when we are in suspension. Ther answer is (JC) the same that we had said before, we’ve done renumeration plans and its fine.

Resolution 2-22: same thing happened again and again. Board not endorsing candidates.Question: Why has the board decided not to endorse 2-9: Board looked into everyone and looked at their CV and saw if they has skills which already weren’t represented on the board.

Question from Michae Carrick: Put Proxy votes on the screen. The Lawyer shut this one down and said it’s only needed prior to the vote.

Basically nothing happened here for a while

Question: Why should we vote for ludbrook and Peter Huljich, what do you possess? Ludbroock told he wasn’t allowed to respond and there would be no questions to candidates, only to board and management, did he want to rephrase? (lauhgs)Lots of NF smirks to the follow questions

Petere Huljish Resolution – multiple questions. Beish – why did PH resign can you comment. He resigned yes we cant after asking lawyers – zero response by management.A question on non-disclosure, which was swatted away by ther boardDebosss - did board wannabees meet with our detractors. Peter didn’t respond, why didn’t he. laughs from NF spread around roomIs PH still chairman of Amani and exposure to Simon Cong. Yes. NNF:Yes. and second no comment. “Tough question Yanni” – we are here to get the right people on the board it’s as simple as that. Crowd - is carrick not that man as per board? “Crowd laughs: Q = What damage did Carrick and Fat tail do to AVCZ by engaging with our detractors (No answer)

.Michael Carrick gets up and talks to the crowd- says that the decisionmakers have slammed the door on AVZ board, and crowd shouts him down. JC asks to let him finish but the crowd shows him down after asking id he paid for the trip there.JC trying to keep going, crowd shouts down and the chairman says he’s been heard and he’s being disruptive.

One shareholder gives a plaudit to the board and NF and everyone cheers and claps. Funny finish (I’ll get to my question). Then stops after giving props to board.

19-22 – endorsed members – disclosure questions2 have been involved in quite some time, and the other know what’s requires. Then a prepared statement on disclosure and the unreliability of information

Proxy votes put up. Fat Tail failed with around 30-35%. Other directors failed with less than 10%. Renumeration is a problem as it got mor than 25% no, so that’s a problem for next year, and John Clarke nearly ousted at 56%

.Other: I feel that the board got off very lightly here. There was no question and answer session like there has been at the previous AGMs and I know that many others had a list of questions like I had to try and get some answers. A win for all for us getting rid of Fat Tail, though im sure they will come back in a different form and approach. Nonetheless, I didn’t get a great feeling that we are near to getting a resolution. I think we are far away and that this is just another step towards a hopefully positive outcome. But it was good to meet some crew, and I even met CRUISER without us ending in blows. I count it as a win.

Expand

"Question on what DD did they do about Locke capital’s track record in abritation. (NF shuts this one down, he just said they fund it they don’t do it, so didn’t answer (this led to a clap from the crowd). Poor answer somewhat but NF said he believed they were a right fit for AVZ"

I'll call NF's response to this for what it was, in response ... that is, poor form, evasive, puppetry spin.

Not that I'm bias given I asked the question, but as you have pointed out.... that club happy clappers applauded because they were backslapping NF's tricky answer, seems MANY missed the actual significant substance of the question.

Tim will tell when the AGM meeting declared, improved continuance disclosure, drip fed devil in the detail starts to unfold around the Locke Capital funding deal..... Then we will see what applause is heard.

As many missed the question first asked where JC closed it down when the questioner asked if NF agreed the $20 mil funding wasn't actual funding at this stage. There is a BIG difference with an MOU and a funding agreement.

I will say, whilst on entry security staff "demanded" people switch off their mobiles, JC stated clearly..... shareholders had the option to place on silence.

Given I am in the danger zone of the current fires in Perth, with a mate close by already knowing he has lost his home, I for one chose to keep my phone on silent so I could receive important updates.

To be threatened to be "evicted' from the meeting because I was maintaining the option as JC stated to place my phone on silent (of which I showed proof it was) was appalling form.

What posts haven't highlighted was the highly scripted little substance answers from the board. If there wasn't a pre-prepared answer, it was a no
comment-esk response.

Also, the somewhat staged questions from the well-established Sunshine lollipop club was laughable.

As I have already declared, I voted in favour of supporting the board.....

For the "crowd" lead by Club happy Clappers to pile on to Michael Carrick when the Chair JC clearly stated he would give Michael Carrick a right of reply, shutting down that, shows extremely poor form in my view.

My vote was already cast, so nothing MC said would have changed the outcome, however, I still would have liked to have heard without disruption what he might have said in person. It was extremely clear, the board were on the backfoot yesterday, MC might have touched on a little chestnut that may have given some insight for shareholders to consider, aside from his quest to spill the board.

Pity we didn't get to say hi Roon-Aus in person and unlike you, I didn't get to "MEET" Cruiser... although there was one person just on his demeanor "stink eyeballing me" if I was to assume if that was Cruiser, I'd say. Yep.. Thats him.

As with many AGM's I've attended in the past, many who are vocal behind a keyboard here, are mild and meek IRL.

Yesterday was NOT a good day for "retail shareholders".

Getting timely disclosures from the board has always been questionable, I don't see this improving going forward.

Thanks for your summation@Roon-Aus, until next year.