This post here, days after Klaus Eckhof dumped evidences how a shareholder will defend the company (AVZ) simply because the value of shares were already under threat.
Note that where ozblue makes reference to a legal point in the Corporations Act, he is dismissed as not a legal officer.
That is, ordinary folk are tersely discouraged from thinking about legality of a director's action or inaction.
[The same happened before this current suspension, arguably anyone holding shares after learning on May 4 2022 AVZ is in conflict with it's Dathcom stakeholders has rocks in their head, or, was absent from news for various reasons, or if here, gas-lit by those allegedly informed by Nigel Ferguson by email, "utter rubbish"
@Mining8.]
it takes a lot to sway mass opinion (for good reason), but what motivated Royal_Viking to 'move on'? Simply, it was share price--there's more value with the company still moving towards it's objective of commercial operations and Klaus was only one director, not all, bailing.
further, we were all waiting on BNB to complete it's due diligence after it's site visit, including AVZ (AFR Ad April 23, 2018). The mention of tinci was to take the heat off the BNB focus and this was clear, from the April quarterly that made light of BNB's visit with only mention of how
bnb appreciated AVZ's rapport with the local community and this comes after all the troubles with Langford and the ASX in the month of March, and later in April 2018, gagged from promoting AVZ on Twitter.
Langford being gagged or filtered by AVZ on anything AVZ related then sets the way for AVZ to promote after some bad press. But the ASX found something else to ventilate on, exploration targets.
do note the third paragraph, Ferguson states AVZ is waiting on BNB to complete it's due diligence to make some sort of decision, hopefully by end of month. That " by end of month" is 7 days away.
A few things, Ferguson is inarguably taciturn on the detail of what kind of decision, is the decision, a trivial one? "some sort of", seems to make light of the weight of the decision, but why mention it at all if it's 'light'? A full page AFR Ad is not cheap to just talk of a counter party, BNB, with regards "some sort of decision " on moving forward.
i don't know about you, but i trend towards thinking this is getting close on cooperation, the kind that leads to updating the MOU to talk of it.
And i know, as discussed with
@VictoriaCoast a shareholder who has had a career as a company secretary, really felt there was to be a transaction base don the April 23 and 26 words. In other words, this is no ordinary reader of a company publications, but a professional who can read the inner purpose motivating a company announcement.
That same shareholder, asked Klaus Eckhof carefully crafted questions in the week before Klaus sold, on updating on BNB's due diligence, and even mentioned deferring to the ASX to prompt AVZ to update. "we are being told very little.
This shareholder states they made a lightly veiled pressure tactic to force AVZ to update on BNB " hopefully by early next week", This Twitter direct message was on May 31 2018, and one week is very
Nostradamian, as those holding shares on June 7 2018, would realise with the director's interest notice posted by the ASX on June 7.
I want to make one thing very clear, i do not have a clear opinion, and definitely not a legal opinion on what counts as insider trading for a judge or a barrister to take it on, but if you have your own store of evidence asking AVZ about any BNB matters in 2018, then please share it either by reference to the first post in this thread indicating how, or another way that suits you.
As it stands Klaus selling on June 4 with an announcement, prima facie, appears to have him compliant, but i think more detail is required, more context and this screenshot may well count towards that context sensitivity.
Did Klaus set a course to sell his shares intersecting with the June 4 2018 announcement on drill results? the drill results announcement, tucked deep into it contained on page 6 an infrastructure update-- but nothing on BNB's due diligence completed or not.
June 4, 2018https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=01987322The
June 4 2018 infrastructure update raised serious questions for seasoned investors, especially professionals. One of these professionals sold shares on
June 4 sensing this omission of BNB is not the right thing to expect, but that the infrastructure update should include something on BNB, naturally after the
AFR ad on April 23 2018 where 5 weeks earlier Nigel was hoping for a decision to be made. Take note, this is from a company secretary professional's nouse. We saw DannyC25 another CS use a similar nouse. This semaphoric language is something industry professionals seemed to have a nose for. I do not think the Corporations Act expect ordinary shareholders to read these signs if it is the case.
The difference between the two is, while one asked hard quetions, DannyC25 may not of, but DannyC25 sold just on the ASX Langford dramas. The one that asked hard questions had more faith in the company imo, the same kind of faith that led the company to brandish it's wares on April 23 in the AFR Ad, (below). it's very interesting how professionals raise flags on different issues for same company..
if this same person on June 4 suspicions had yelled from the roof-tops something smells about the June 4 announcement, on infrastructure, how many would have listened? Probably few, because many care about who not what you say, and in particular who matters is AVZ Minerals. However many may recall they relied on the Ninja,
@longtak - the question, here is, did AVZ rely on the Ninja to promote on Twitter? A question for another day and some have commented already,
@Anonymouse2If Royal_Viking had yelled something smells i hazard a guess the result would be a little different, as Royal_Viking has his chat groups. Indeed on March 12, he said to some shareholders, :"mark me". I hope they queried/y him on what he said to mark him on.
There is no way, if AVZ has done something wrong, that Royal_Viking has any recourse, because, shown from this one tweet, he also heavily, spuriously, relied on Airguide for confidence. i think, as many have commented with regards Easter Eggs, Langford pretty much became the company for them.
@Anonymouse2 .And as tantalising as having an insider give insights is or might be, this is corrosive for legal reasons. You are potentially being cheated, so never rely on shareholders other than the company's supply. But i hazard a guess, the ASX saw a link between Langford tweeting and AVZ, for AVZ to be able to be forced to say, effectively, "yes sir yes sir, three bags full sir".
Should AVZ have acted earlier on the Ninja ramping? Because what this means and means for any ASX company is, if you rely on a possible proxy, like Ninja or Jens (Ninja's friend at that time), then you, depending on frequency may have divorced yourself from your legal rights to hold the ASX company accountable.
This is why i think some ASX companies appear to love proxies who go social, it makes it harder to point the finger where you need it to go,
On top of that you have other Apex shareholders who then dispense information.
All this means you are further away from demonstrating your reliance on company annoucements.
Never ever rely on self-purported company shills, or wannabe ones.
title: March 12 2018, 10:09am. Regards the SOE subsidiary BNB, "Mark me"-- and so he was.
This is likely why Royal_Viking as an ex-banker matters a lot in some circles. but in fact, did June 4 stink for
@Royal_Viking, you may wish to ask him privately if he wrote a long, diplomatic letter to Klaus Eckhof on the company's vision, (and this is before the director interest notice.). Even seasoned operators on the share market that can
smell distress can still be short of understanding what's really happening [in hindsight], Klaus has started selling on June 4.
You may also like to ask him, despite what he says publicly to Ozblue, that only days before the June 7 2018, director's interest notice he was hissing a furious fit about AVZ for reasons he would not divulge, and was contemplating shorting AVZ.
What did Royal_Viking know prior to Klaus selling on June 7 and from who? One thing is certain, this dialogue comes after the June 4 page six-ivied infrastructure update and he did not know Klaus was selling, and AVZ had not updated the market on BNB.
And this selling on June 4, 2018, coinciding with drill results might be the basis for why Klaus has not been 'zoomed in on' for any weakness in his compliance because it may be, at law, how he complies. I still have questions, because there was drilling assays afterwards 11 days later.
IN hindsight, Klaus could have and perhaps ought to have updated the market on BNB completing it's due diligence upon having pressure to do so, allegedly on May 31.
Nigel Ferguson was expecting , with "hope" by end of April (AFR Ad 23) BNB completing and making a decision on moving forward.
Just one sentence either was needed.
The next time AVZ made an announcement naming BNB explicitly was on October 17, with a grilling from the ASX over the GBR report.
There are instances in the private generously made public by
@aemkeinyc , where BNB and other MOUs are said by AVZ to still be there, but this is not direct reliance for others. Each shareholder can not be sure from other ordinary shareholders. To do so is to potentially limit your rights.
@Mining8 in 2022, did the right thing but only for himself despite sharing Nigel Ferguson's email.
Deboss here is a trusting person, but he would have had to contact AVZ directly if he wanted proper certainty for true reliance, legally speaking. Hence the emphasis on ASX announcements and other publications by the company as the key source of reliance is critical, not Royal viking, not Ozblue, not me or someone else etc etc
This is why, i am asking if 2018 shareholders had contacted the company on BNB matters. There's heaps of instances out there. Count yourself in here.
.
June 2018
And yet, despite that pressure applied evident from at least one switched on shareholder (professional), there is possibly a deeper underlying reason, selfless in some ways, why Klaus sold, he did it to distract from updating on BNB?
Could he have in fact saved the company from some other destructive embarrassment? One that would determine whether members here who are shareholders would be still holding shares today?
This is why on the other thread, without making claims for or against the company, i am simply asking shareholders to share what they communicated with the company regards Beijing National Battery and factually as per HC TOUs.
The company, on the whole minus Klaus, was still seeking commercial operation and the last
Target Pathway to Development give or take a quarter or two, showed AVZ wanting to be in commercial operation
early 2020, (2017 AGM Corps presentation), and that carrot has driven this stock. Another post for another day.
Patrick Flint resigned the day the Tinci MOU was released on March 6. i think it went unnoticed because his role was fairly silent, and it was inserted
* with an MOU with Tinci and it was a relief after Klaus stated with much honesty,
(to what degree is worth a post on it's own in hindsight but the confession the Chinese were delaying was confidence building the company was disclosing with some transparency it's difficulty with Chinese counter parties), that current and potential partners are looking for advancement of the project before further commitment. Klaus also mentioned weakness of markets for why the CR was at 25cps. the share-price was at 30cps before this "Cantor Placement".
February 26, 2018, Klaus Eckhof:
We have now secured funding for our planned exploration and pre-feasibility
programs through to the end of the year. Our existing and potential Chinese partners have told us they
are looking for advancement of the project prior to making further commitments, and we are now
funded to achieve this goal.
AVZ to raise $15 million to fund further work at Manono
2 pages 185.0KBMatthew O'Hara, the company secretary left after only a year's service on
September 9, 2018.i recall Mathew O'Hara had a lot of heat applied to him for what was going on after the Klaus dump. Apparently Nigel Ferguson had or was recovering from malaria. Klaus Eckhof's Monaco phone line was intact and many shareholders got Klaus's view and, something of this batch was deemed scandalous if true and was declared as fake, but it was not, as shown below with pink icon. But at the time it was posted with own thread it was astonishing. And the whole thread was moderated.
@HiggensworthThis ex-shareholder apparently suffered a large loss.
Public
notice: Shareholders of 2018, are welcome to share their recollections here.
Back to Royal_Viking countering
@ozblue who may not be able to comment here since October 2018, This enumerated point list, is simply to dismiss questions testing wrongdoing or not by a company officer even when it is clear at that time, to everyone except Klau
s (AFR June 7, The Australian June 8), that the director's interest notice of selling more than half his portfolio over three days had a destructive impact on AVZ's share price and this sudden change in sentiment from March 2018 and from the AFR ad and Proactive investor interview April 26 (discussions on interim financing with a potential strategic partner), would raise questions of insider trading..
Klaus stated his reasons, and these were easily accepted to 'move on', one of which is he is not a mining guy, the markets were showing weakness, he cited the greed of traders around 30cps, he needs cash
@3 AVZ referring to 3, see release of Director's interest notice as causal for AVZ share price down:
@4 Listing rules, and 3.1
https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=01988725
What did or could Klaus have known, that you as a 2018 AVZ holder did not know? And perhaps still do not know? Without making claims for a breach of non-disclosure rules or not,
Royal_Viking makes the point @ 2. that
@ozblue is relying on a summary note, not law pertaining. And i hazard a guess, the law is quite particular about what counts as insider trading but royal_viking demonstrates a keen desire to not be curious as to what the law pertaining says, and effectively his point is to 'move on', there's going to be a new chairman, us AVZ shareholders are owning this and will determine what we want to focus on.' - to that effect
What royal_viking @ 4. asserts is an obfuscation of facts, because --discussions were footnoted as "ongoing" wth GreatPower and Tinci {March 21 2018) but with BNB they were promoted -effectively escalated on March 21 then on April 24, BNB is "completing" . arguably for AVZ, there was a 'pending' and as declared on April 24 with BNB. This pending arose on March when the company had the overwhelming desire to tell the market, that after a number of months, and after March 12, only 9 days ago, discussions are centring on "working together" to "accelerate" development and production of the Manono project. Gone is Klaus Eckhof's development target, METs, Assays, JORC, but accelerating development and production. All this within the commercial operation plan by early 2020. [2017 AGM Corp pres,]
https://www.asx.com.au/asx/statistics/displayAnnouncement.do?display=pdf&idsId=01927445
one conclusion, is AVZ has inserted bad news with good news, subordinating the bad to the good.
That's what happened on May 4 2022, "media speculation" on Dathcom dramas
its what happened, very remotely on June 4 2018. "infrastructure update" omitting BNB as inconsistent - certainly not what the May 31 shareholder was expecting after messaging.
Always read to the bottom is plain to see, but more so,
There are very material questions about 2018 and what happened.
Please share on topic, what you can. there were 9,000 plus avz shareholders in 2018. This is a genuine appeal shareholders who feel affected by what happened in 2018 up until i suppose at the 2020 AGM, some shareholders were still asking apparently about BNB and other MOUs.
AIMO and subject to revision if anyone finds the above content objectionable for proper reasons.
