Court injunction over Kolosori, page-40

MCFJ. In quoting the past as above you are sidedly pro AVQ selective.
For new HC readers seeking a balanced understanding of the same SMM v AVQ & others High Court trial outcomes, the high court also cancelled AVQ’s ML, the 50 years land lease & the TAKARTA land registration processes that preceded and necessitated the aforementioned, all cancelled. Along with millions $$$ dollars of AVQ shareholders funds stupidly spent (lost) by RM on those ML grounds while it was under a major legal challenge. Which AVQ also lost. But why were AVQ’s Takarta (Kolosori) registered interests etcetera cancelled ? Because the HC & appeals courts determined that steps taken by AVQ in the land registration, land lease & ML processes were not compliant with the regulations ! So even AVQ does not follow procedures to the letter of the law. As for your remark of AVQ addressed every component of compliance law.........more accurately is the case that AVQ has had to answer wide ranging & serous investigations into many aspects of your compliance laws. As for the outcome & response from the corporate regulators to AVQ’s (RM) answers.......... well as always we shareholders have to wait & see what the regulators next steps will be. For now AVQ shareholders & their shares are stuck in the trading halt & capital raising wilderness of no persons land. As you also said above “don’t confuse obstacles ..... etcetera with non compliance”, well AVQ shareholders would perhaps say “don’t confuse non -compliance with other things” . Time will tell