KoBold Makes Offer for Congo Lithium as Country Courts US, page-2789

ASX in that doc I linked, discusses that point of difficulty. It’s an objective test, and very stringent. That’s why 1. & 2. are there to help a company officer.

In the ASX query that landed AVZ an involuntary suspension, AVZ are much more transparent.

Which gives me the feeling AVZ does not respect ordinary investors when you compare how they are made to answer to the ASX, but give little to us.

Back in the bad days, AVZ even cited a non-existent passage from its October 2018 scoping study, — to substantiate, compare AVZ scoping study October 2018, with the ASX query on October 17. Search keyword, “ Beijing National “ in this SS pdf, and then compare to October 27 query with same keyword.

what you discover is a phantom quotation from it’s scoping study. Only explanation to defend AVZ is to think perhaps ASX made them delete those names in the SS, and AVZ was basically (with confidence from Steinpag) shoving it in ASX’s face. But rather may be AVZ lawyers hazard ASX won’t even check the citation. It’s head scratcher — and if you bother to check you’ll understand why I’m confident to comment on it. As it’s factual.

Further on the SS October 17, AVZ fraudulently quote Premier Africa metals SC6 as an SC5. This was no simple typo, it was strategic to argue for $15 extra per 0.1% above SC5, and thus $AVZ key metric for SC6 product.

To SUBSTANTIATE claim AVZ’s fraudulent insubstantiation, our wonderful detective, Der Geist on X, lovingly posted all details on X (trying to warn about alleged AVZ dodgy disclosure practices - we know he was right by May 2022).
https://x.com/Sanegeist/status/1514758320816500753




but to defend AVZ, why they didn’t correct because Nigel return called Shane that evening released, is that OVERALL, the pricing was ok, was a future price despite its scandal for SC6 producers in Australia , so objectivity here is interesting Sediaw