You'd hope management has a better game plan that just the litigation path. If this keeps dragging on and we end up getting delisted in May, it doesn't look good for a return on investment imo. Take Sundance Resources as an example – they got delisted three years back when the Congo cancelled their mining permit. Now they're juggling three legal battles, including ICC face-offs with the Congo and Cameroon.
The Chairman, in the 2023 AGM address, seems pretty sure they'll win the ICC round with the Congo, expecting a judgement between 1.7B-5B (depending on the iron ore price used). In the Cameroon case with the ICC, Sundance want a mining permit to be issued or 5.5B in damages to be paid. Sound familiar?
Here's the kicker, though – their current stock price is a measly 0.5c, the whole company is valued at only 47M with those 9.5B shares. A company that was once worth 5B is now worth pocket change. The Chairman talks big about a potential 10B win from the ICC, but if that's realistic, why's the company only valued at 47M? There maybe a reason for this that others can point out but it looks to me that the market doesn't quite buy into the idea that even if they win in court, getting the other parties to actually cough up that compensation is a long shot.
Even though Sundance Resources is off the ASX grid after delisting, the game plan remains unchanged – shareholders still own the same shares as before and the company still makes announcements, however announcements are via their website rather than the ASX. As per a Sundance announcement, shareholders that wish to sell can go for an off-market transfer through Computershare. So, if you manage to snag a buyer for your shares, a sale is doable.
if there was even a slight chance of cashing in on potential ICC judgments, and some shareholders wanted to sell, then why aren't buyers lining up willing to pay a premium on the 0.5c price for a potential 100-fold return? Maybe the answer is, people aren't holding their breath for Sundance to hit the jackpot in the billions in compensation from the ICC and then actually have someone pay it out.
There are a lot of similarities in the Sundance story and AVZ but hopefully we don't follow in their' footsteps with litigation as the only path for a potential return. Ideally, the litigation route we're taking is a strategic move to push the other parties involved, either into settling with a pay-out to drop the litigation or to have the mining license reinstated to Dathcom.
The pressure is on with the legal proceedings; something's got to give, and it needs to be something significant soon!
Expand
