Running discussion on SP, page-78541

In 2 out of 3 cases before the ICC, AVZ is the defending party and AVZ cannot stop those cases.

One case is Zijin claiming that it legally bought 15% of Dathcom from Cominiere, AVZ disputes this as it has as per JV contract Pre-Emptive rights and the sale is illegal.
Second case is the damages claim from Zijin and Cominiere for US$1.4 billion (Zijin 15% and Cominiere 10%). because of first case.

Zijin + Cominiere effectively say here that AVZ's 75% of Dathcom is worth 3 times their 25%, or US$4.2 billion, or AUS$ 6.5 billion.
If Zijin's claim is illegal, as per the PE rights, the second case is meaningless, but opens the door for AVZ to lodge a damages claim against Zijin + Cominiere.

In the 3rd case before the ICC, AVZ is the Claimant.
AVZ is fighting Dathomir for the i5% of Dathcom, which it legally bought and paid for as per sales contract.
Why would AVZ cancel that case?

The case for the ICSID
The main purpose of the ICSID Arbitration Request is to seek various remedies for the failure of the DRC and its administrative departments, to comply with obligations under the DRC Mining Code, in particular in the implementation of the various measures that should have led to the issuance of an Operating Permit to Dathcom resulting from the Research Permit "PR 13359", for the development of the Manono Project.

As long as the Operating Permit is not issued this case stands.