indeed that isnt the ideal outcome. DLA Piper would be pretty...

indeed that isnt the ideal outcome. DLA Piper would be pretty weak to not highlight the conflict of interest. but equally i am sure at least on paper its not a legal issue for fasker to provide services to two clients with some level of linkage. Certainly they would lose all credibility and prestige if they are found to be colluding and i also note the Fasker leads do not list the ICSID claim anywhere in their profile (they do show the ICC claim).

Whilst this certainly opens the thinking on collution and overall negative momentum for us, contrasting this there is also alot of positivity around new board members with significant political, african, and career prestige that would not join AVZ if they thought this was dead-end. Further the positive rulings through ICC and i expect ICSID all positive for AVZ.

It comes down to one question - Does the DRC Abide by ICC and ICSID ruling, and if not - why?

Rationale for disregarding ICSID and ICC
1) Keep any bribery monies
2) Progresses with China ties if this what they want

Rationale for going with ICC and ICSID pathways
1) Reinforces the DRC message to the world - open for investment
2) Benefits from World Bank aid
3) Satisfies anti-chinese sentiment in DRC
4) Is aligned with Anti-China messaging of recent. https://www.africanews.com/2023/05/26/felix-tshisekedi-visits-china-to-renegotiate-mining-contracts// | https://www.barrons.com/news/chinese-company-to-pay-dr-congo-state-miner-2-billion-over-cobalt-dispute-9559da0c
5) Is aligned with MOU signed with USA

100% agree DRC is a shithole of a place to invest and i will never invest again.

But i dont think its time to conclude we wont have a successful outcome. Balance of probability in my opinion is 80% AVZ 20% against US.

Time will tell though

Cheers for the contribution even if negative, its very much appreciated