I‘ve made a new thread because my post (moderated for off topic) contains important information about the demand for “substantiation” here by some as compared to AVZ Governance.
My Post, revealed by way of an email screenshot SEE ABOVE from S&P Global Market Intelligence “SPGMI”, that AVZ Minerals appears to have chosen SILENCE by not replying to S&P Global Market Intelligence’s query on BNB bonafides.
The reply requested from AVZ by SPGMI was expecting to clarify why AVZ’s BNB MOU (March 12 2018) statements as shown on Bloomberg’s page for BNB in 2018-2020? Or AVZ’s website, can not be corroborated with deep searches into BNB’s actual corporate ownership.
S&P Global Market Intelligence attempted to contact AVZ on its BNB MOU (March 12 2018). SPGMI state AVZ failed to reply.
Integrity of market information matters to SPGMI and surely AVZ Minerals. So why the silence by AVZ.
Back in 2018, some of us noted a Bloomberg page on BNB.
For example we see here an exchange with
@PASBOZ and 8Horse.
PASBOZ says “For those that like facts.” proudly revealing Bloomberg has set up a page on BNB. Normally, a company (BNB in this instance would apply to have a page posted via S&P-GMI. We tried very hard to learn WHO applied to have this page posted. Because in it reveals a confession by absence. If we could learn whether Airguide, AVZ, or BNB or another party, we could learn why they omitted the SPIC website for State Power Group.
Our lawyers have confirmed our research showing SPIC at no time was related to BNB in a corporate legal sense. Nor was State Power Group parent to BNB.
These corporate bonafides mattered to establish the value BNB brings to the Manono project.
So there is PASBOZ beaming with certitude on facts, that also reveal a purported fact by AVZ, is now omitted and by who.
In any case, AVZ were not helpful with what was published on the Bloomberg page as well as its own ASX release.
At the time I was unaware of this post by
@8horse but what 8Horse does is correct the record. 8horse knew AVZ’s BNB MOU was contradicted by paying attention to facts about BNB on Chinese websites.
Did 8Horse contact Michael Langford or AVZ ? It’s so sensitive he will not answer to why he chose to contradict PASBOZ in a fairly passive quiet way. It must have irritated him the market was not properly informed.
i think it’s of material interest, that holders understand how the company,
still has not explained or amended in good time the alleged mis-statements on BNB. It may also be instructive on being cautious about what has really gone on in the last 4 years. IF the company wants to blame its China Strategic Consultant then that does not conform with its obligations as I understand.
Here is SPGMI’s email. SPGMI still didn’t get it right. They struggled to find the information they wanted and it was incomplete. I offered them my sources but by then SPGMI had resolved that it had learned its product was less than satisfactory on this occasion. It’s a good lesson for them but of course they did not supply the information to Bloomberg, they just administered posting.
So, when it comes to substantiation, in SPGMI’s professional opinion, AVZ has not supplied substantiation about BNB as subsidiary to State Power Group.
We know this was material including SPiC as SPG, because SPIC was and is a central government state owned enterprise backing BNB to possibly rival CATL. More on this soon. Note well how these investors, a lawyer and a bank professional believed in the implicit statements BNB is backed by a State Owned Enterprise.
Consequently, from the BNB MOU, corporate lawyers like DLA might argue AVZ never represented what these investors believed in because it’s not on the BNB MOU page.
Which begs the question to the jurisdiction, should ASX companies be made to compile a complete website into a PDF that would ordinarily be linked to by companies like AVZ with a web address? That way investors can be certain EXACTLY want AVZ is referring to. But that was obvious from AVZ statement in any case except to corporate lawyers who might claim the string of letters for the SPIC website said anything about a state owned enterprise. But here we have a German lawyer who uses common sense to suggest yes, AVZ implicitly represented so by explains SPG is SPIC by pointing to the website.
