Litigation Timelines, page-440

@Amovatio

Thanks Amovatio for a balanced reply.

Whilst resuming trading gives certain shareholders and opportunity to sell, through the provisions of institutional shorting, it however unfairly exposes long term investors to coordinated manipulation by a select few. The level of uncertainty AVZ would have in this scenario would make it for an absolute shorters paradise and the companys share price would go so low as to make it unable to secure any working capital and in-effect capitulate.

Whilst this might seem overly dramatic, I am certain when you look at the backdrop of current lithium performance, add in AVZ trading with massive uncertainty (core asset in doubt), paid negative propaganda, loss of data privacy etc etc; AVZ would be pennies - sub 5-10c most certainly... Is itfair for long termers with longer horizon to suggest their investment is 2.6b down because of DRC corruption? Doesn't the end of the yellow brick road lead to a some sort of multi billion dollar settlement in a decade to come? or are we suggesting that is in doubt? I cant see that happening unless AVZ is shown to have operated illegally; therefore AVZ shares have value even in an unlisted fashion. in-fact more value if it delists at 78c valuation and we can price in the value of the settlement at its fair value.

So no i do not think AVZ should be able to trade unless the ASX ban's shorting and coordinated manipulation. Under these "orchestrated markets", it is better for AVZ to remain in trading halt

All that matters is where we end up, either a masterstroke by management coincidentally lining up to a massive destruction in lithium (Note: against an industry backdrop of increasing demand, towards a point where there is now structural issues in future supply even though this is an industry that is growing, had ample investment and should never be talking about structural deficits in this YoY projection - Is that a fair market pricing mechanism?)..

OR

A failure by management, lining up to what will almost certainly be a class action lawsuit where the board has clearly not shared what has become important information based what was their "judgement call" - hindsight is a harsh authority. Nigel and his board are under the pump and along with their monetary position we can be guaranteed are working the best outcomes to keep us happy enough to not participate in a class action.