Member Info for Ajmalkhuram

Translated

The ICC2 decision today was disappointing, but it doesn’t change the bigger picture for Zenith. The company has already submitted a request for annulment, which keeps legal options open. Most importantly, this case only represents a small part of the overall potential linked to the arbitration proceedings.

The main focus now is the ICSID case, in which Zenith is claiming USD 503 million. A decision is expected in 2026. According to the valuation from Analyst Group, even the conservative bear-case scenario — assuming only a 60% chance of partial success, a 90% reduction in the awarded amount, and a further 25% reduction due to collection risk — points to a share price of NOK 1.1. That’s double the current price of NOK 0.55. The base-case valuation is NOK 3.4, while the bull-case — based on full success and operational growth — is NOK 7.3.

Regardless of the arbitration process, Zenith continues to generate positive cash flow from electricity production in Italy, which helps maintain operations. This is not a company entirely dependent on legal outcomes — there is a real underlying business.

The market reaction today seems to be driven by short-term disappointment, but it’s important to remember that the ICSID case is still ongoing and has the potential to be a significant value driver. Analyst Group also notes that the company would be able to survive even under the bear scenario, though on a smaller scale.

All things considered, the current share price does not appear to reflect either the long-term upside or the conservative downside protection. For investors with risk tolerance and patience, this could still be an asymmetric opportunity.

One things for sure at least some of the posts in Norway better than garbage spouted here.

ICC2-avgjørelsen i dag var skuffende, men det endrer ikke det store bildet for Zenith. Selskapet har allerede sendt inn en begjæring om annullering, noe som holder de juridiske mulighetene åpne. Viktigst av alt er at denne saken kun utgjør en liten del av det totale potensialet knyttet til voldgiftssakene.

Hovedfokuset nå ligger på ICSID-saken, der Zenith krever 503 millioner USD. En avgjørelse er ventet i 2026. Ifølge verdivurderingen fra Analyst Group, tilsier selv det konservative Bear-scenariet – hvor man antar kun 60 % sjanse for delvis medhold, 90 % reduksjon i tilkjent beløp og ytterligere 25 % reduksjon grunnet innkrevingsrisiko – en aksjekurs på NOK 1,1. Det er dobbelt så mye som dagens kurs på NOK 0,55. I basisscenarioet er verdien satt til NOK 3,4, mens Bull-scenarioet – ved full seier og operasjonell vekst – ligger på NOK 7,3.

Uavhengig av voldgiftsprosessene genererer Zenith fortsatt positiv kontantstrøm fra elektrisitetsproduksjonen i Italia, noe som bidrar til å opprettholde driften. Dette er ikke et selskap som utelukkende er avhengig av juridiske utfall – det finnes en reell forretningsdrift i bunn.

Markedets reaksjon i dag virker å være drevet av kortsiktig skuffelse, men det er viktig å huske at ICSID-saken fortsatt pågår og har potensial til å være en betydelig verdidriver. Analyst Group bemerker også at selskapet vil kunne overleve selv i et Bear-scenario, men i en mindre skala.

Alt tatt i betraktning ser dagens aksjekurs ut til å ikke reflektere verken den langsiktige muligheten eller den konservative nedsidebeskyttelsen. For investorer med risikotoleranse og tålmodighet, kan dette fortsatt være en asymmetrisk mulighet.

I doubt 15p but today will be the worst day for sure. Long term will be 5 nok + icsid has always been the main case and most professional court

Conclusion

This ruling does not change the core investment thesis. If you believed in the value of Zenith’s legal case yesterday, the outlook remains intact today — and the risk-reward profile may now be even more attractive at a lower entry point.

I am holding my position and, depending on the market's reaction tomorrow, I plan to increase it. The legal fight continues — and the path to a significant recovery remains open.

Taken from Finansavisen

My thoughts

The ICC-2 decision is clearly disappointing and has caught me off guard. The Tribunal has rejected Zenith’s $130 million claim related to the Sidi El Kilani concession, despite strong evidence and the precedent set by the earlier ICC-1 win. There’s no denying that this is a setback in the legal process — but it is far from the final word.

Here’s why I remain confident in the investment case and am choosing to hold — and, if the market overreacts, increase my position on any significant drop.

1. ICC-2 is not the core prize

This case was just one component of Zenith’s broader legal strategy. The far more significant and valuable case is the $503 million ICSID arbitration, which remains fully active and unaffected by the ICC-2 decision. ICSID is governed by a different international framework, and proceedings are progressing, with final submissions due in September 2025 and the final hearing scheduled for Q2 2026.

2. Annulment application is already underway

Zenith’s legal counsel has confirmed that an application for annulment will be submitted to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, based on serious procedural irregularities that were formally recorded throughout the ICC-2 proceedings. The Tribunal’s final ruling spanned 70 pages but offered only six pages of reasoning for rejecting complex, well-documented claims — a clear legal red flag. If annulled, Zenith will have the opportunity to reargue the case before a newly appointed and impartial tribunal.

3. ICC-1 win still stands and is enforceable

It’s important not to overlook that Zenith already won the earlier ICC-1 arbitration against Tunisia — worth around $10 million — and is now in the enforcement phase. That award validates the legitimacy of the company’s claims and demonstrates that international tribunals have ruled in Zenith’s favour when proceedings were properly handled.

4. Tomorrow’s market reaction is likely emotional, not rational

If the share price drops tomorrow, it will likely be driven by a surface-level reaction to the headline — not by a fundamental reassessment of Zenith’s long-term legal or financial position. The ICSID claim remains intact. ICC-1 enforcement is progressing. ICC-2 is being challenged. The potential value remains substantial, and short-term market weakness may provide a rare opportunity to accumulate at a steep discount.

5. Litigation processes take time — but can unlock significant value

Legal strategies like this are complex and often lengthy. But when successful, they can create immense value. Zenith has shown its willingness to challenge flawed rulings, escalate through the proper channels, and protect shareholder interests. That commitment should reinforce, not weaken, investor confidence.

He’s just posted on his x that the amount zenith are asking for is going to be $800m.

Great volume today on Oslo

Yes the guy clearly angry at ETAP he’s not a pretty informative history of posts I’m translating them as we speak some mad information about failures of ETAP

Someone asked LOA The arbitration ruling between Zenith and Tunisia came out on May 31 — the result is still a secret. But people inside the Ministry and ETAP know: we lost. The fear of massive compensation is real. That’s why they rushed and appointed new American lawyers for the U.S. case.”

The Lady of AIM confirmed the information is accurate — impressively specific. This account @mohammedammart is definitely worth following. It features a long history of detailed, insightful posts spanning back quite some time.

Having just reviewed the latest RNS, the £2.26 million raised through private placements in the UK and Norway initially appeared as yet another dilution. However, stepping back and considering the broader strategic context, this may in fact be one of the more astute moves the company has made in recent months.

While the placements were priced at a discount—10% in Norway and 6.47% in the UK—what's particularly noteworthy is the calibre and behaviour of the participants. Both new and existing investors subscribed despite the share price trading near historical highs. That level of demand, under these conditions, serves as a strong vote of confidence in Zenith’s current trajectory.

Investor sentiment seems to be shifting positively, underpinned by impending arbitration decisions and the company’s increasing focus on cash-generative energy assets. Strategically, Zenith appears to be aligning itself well for sustained growth.

The capital is earmarked for investment in solar, with a stated goal of acquiring a 20MWp portfolio by year-end. Should they execute successfully, this would represent a meaningful step toward generating recurring revenue and lessening dependence on future equity raises—exactly the kind of disciplined capital allocation long-term investors want to see.

In terms of dilution, approximately 15.95 million new shares will be issued—a relatively modest addition given the current market cap and trading dynamics. From a valuation perspective, this is a small concession for potentially significant upside, provided the capital is deployed effectively.

With two arbitration claims pending—collectively exceeding $600 million—the risk/reward profile is becoming increasingly compelling. A partial award alone could substantially re-rate the company. Combine that with the solar expansion, and a billion-dollar valuation scenario is no longer implausible.

In my view, this raise strengthens Zenith’s position. It’s not a move made out of necessity, but one rooted in strategic foresight. The company is proactively bolstering its balance sheet ahead of high-impact catalysts—precisely what you’d want to see from a management team preparing for transformational outcomes.

No, I am not the same person, but I do agree that he is right and you are wrong.

Do you care to address any of the points I have raised now? You seem to want to throw personal digs instead of answering the questions. Or is it that you haven’t a clue about the company?

Zenith’s situation is quite different:

The company expects to receive proceeds from arbitration 1, which could be enforced via sequestration if necessary.

It has a clearly defined cap on dilution: at worst, approximately 25 million shares at NOK 1.20 to repay $2.8 million in principal and interest.

If the share price rises on a successful arbitration 2 result — say to NOK 2.40 — then only 12.5 million shares would be needed.

At NOK 4.80, this would fall further to just 6.25 million.

The structure of the loan, combined with the floor and the company's upcoming legal catalysts, offers a far more shareholder-friendly scenario than what is typically seen with convertible financing.

In summary, while criticism is of course fair and welcome in any discussion, it's important to ensure it’s grounded in fact. In this case, your arguments rely on assumptions that do not align with either the public documentation or Zenith’s prior behaviour. Let’s keep the conversation focused on evidence and informed analysis.

Panman, with respect, your post once again reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of several key aspects of the current situation. Let me address each of your points in turn:

1. “The poster has no idea whether the assets intended to be bought are 'distressed' — that's just blind hope.”

You're partially correct in that we cannot confirm with absolute certainty that Zenith’s next acquisition will be distressed. However, based on the company's acquisition history, it is entirely reasonable to infer that any upcoming deals are likely to follow a similar pattern.

Zenith has consistently acquired assets from either distressed sellers or large operators divesting from certain regions. This was the case with Tilapia, as well as with all of the Tunisian assets — including those acquired from Candax (a distressed sale) and from KUFPCE and CNPC (majors exiting the field). In every instance, Zenith secured the assets significantly below market value due to the seller’s urgency or strategic pivot.

Given this well-established pattern, it's neither blind hope nor baseless speculation to suggest that Zenith will again be acquiring under favourable, value-driven terms.

2. “The lender likely isn't relying on any further arbitrations as security — it'll be the £9.7m already won that's being used for that.”

This statement is demonstrably incorrect. The RNS from Friday clearly states:

“The Company has entered into an unsecured Convertible Loan for a total amount of US$2,000,000.”

The term “unsecured” is not ambiguous — it means the loan is not backed by any assets, including the $9.7 million won in the first arbitration. The lender has no claim over that amount. The loan may be repaid either in cash or in shares, at Zenith’s discretion, and there is no mention of any form of security linked to the arbitration outcome or proceeds.

3. “On that basis, what lender wouldn't approve a loan set at a 20% interest rate?”

Any lender would think twice about entering into a loan agreement where:

The loan is unsecured

It can be repaid in shares rather than cash

The conversion price is fixed at a floor of NOK 1.20, regardless of market conditions

If the share price were to fall to NOK 0.60, for example, the lender would receive shares worth only half the loan’s value. This is a significant risk. The only reason a lender would agree to such terms is if they are highly confident the share price will rise — most likely due to expectations surrounding the outcome of arbitration 2.

4. “The convertible loan is dilution until paid off in cash — which historically speaking, rarely happens.”

That’s generally true — most convertible loans do lead to dilution. However, context matters. Many companies resort to convertible loans as a last resort, often on predatory terms with no conversion floor and no realistic prospect of repayment.

Zenith’s situation is quite different:

The company exp

Pam man,

With respect, I think you have a serious misunderstanding here about what the term “death spiral finance” actually means — because if you understood it, there’s no way you’d apply it to Zenith’s current arrangement.

“Death spiral finance” refers to funding structures where the lender can convert debt into equity at an ever-decreasing price, typically based on a discount to the 30-day VWAP. Each conversion leads to more dilution, the share price drops further, and subsequent conversions are done at even lower prices — creating a destructive feedback loop that benefits the lender while punishing shareholders.

That is categorically not what’s happening with Zenith’s convertible loan.

In this case, there’s a fixed floor conversion price of NOK 1.20. No matter how low the share price goes, the lender cannot convert below that level. This single condition breaks the death spiral mechanism entirely. It caps the dilution, protects the share structure, and aligns both parties’ interests — because the fewer shares issued, the better the return for both Zenith and the lender if the price rises.

So while you’re entitled to question or dislike the funding decision, calling it “death spiral finance” is simply wrong. That term has a very specific meaning and doesn’t apply here — not even close.

Let’s stick to fair, fact-based discussion. Throwing around terms like that without understanding them does nothing but spread confusion.

Taken from FS by MGS “ One of the most telling things about Friday’s announcement is how quiet the usual critics have been. Even the professional naysayers — the ones who never have anything good to say about Zenith — are struggling to find fault with this raise. And that says a lot.

Let’s look at the facts:

1) The funding is going towards acquiring more solar assets — stable, revenue-generating assets in a European market where electricity prices are only moving in one direction.

2) Two-thirds of the raise came through a convertible loan, not equity — which dramatically reduces dilution.

3) The placement price was well above the 30-day average, showing strong confidence from investors.

4) There’s a floor of NOK 1.20 on any share-based repayment — protecting shareholders from lowball conversions.

5) And crucially, there’s a three-month conversion holiday. No shares can be issued from the loan until that period passes.

Now, ask yourself: why would Zenith structure it this way? And more importantly — why would the lender agree to it?

From Zenith’s perspective, the answer is simple and consistent with past updates: they’re securing capital to buy distressed solar assets in Italy — the kind of deals Andrea Cattaneo is known for, where cash flow can be secured quickly and added to the company’s bottom line.

But the more interesting question is: why would a lender accept these terms? Why accept:

1) A placing price well above the 30-day average?

2) A minimum conversion price of NOK 1.20, even if the share price falls?

Only two logical answers: either the lender is clueless, or — and this is far more likely — they’re backing Zenith because they know what’s coming.

The answer lies in arbitration.

At the Oslo investor presentation, Andrea made it crystal clear: he believes Zenith has already won the second arbitration. And it’s not blind optimism — the way the two cases are structured means that winning the first case has all but secured the second. It’s now just a matter of how much the damages will be, and when the ruling lands.

The lender clearly sees it the same way.

The structure of this raise — the pricing, the protections, the delay in share conversion — all point to high confidence in a major upcoming positive event. That can only be the arbitration.

So while the market digests the news, smart investors should take note: this isn’t a raise for survival. It’s a raise for growth, done on excellent terms, with clear signals that the arbitration result is not in doubt — only the timing is.

If you're still on the fence, ask yourself this: when was the last time Zenith raised capital on terms this favourable without something major around the corner? “

“ It’s becoming pretty obvious that Zenith’s latest raise — via both a private placement and a convertible loan — is all about pushing forward with their solar strategy that started back in April. They raised $2 million in March for this, and now they’ve added another $2.2 million between the placement and the loan. That gives them over $5 million to work with. This isn’t about plugging gaps or keeping the lights on — it’s clearly for acquisitions. And if you’re reading between the lines, it’s hard to believe they’re done buying. There’s almost certainly more coming.

Yes, placing new shares is never ideal on the face of it. But there’s a massive difference between issuing equity to survive and issuing equity to grow — and this is firmly the latter. They’re not funding wages or admin costs. They’re going after assets. And when it’s Andrea Cattaneo behind the deals, that carries weight. He’s proven in the past he won’t force acquisitions — he walks away if they’re not right for Zenith. That’s how we ended up with Tunisia in the first place, which was generating serious cash until the seizure.

That seizure cost Zenith around $20 million a year in revenue. That’s a big hit, and AC clearly knows they need to fill that gap — the solar moves look like his answer. And now that he’s got the cash in place, the company is in a solid position to move quickly.

The pricing of the raise also says a lot. They placed at NOK 1.20 per share — barely below the market price (NOK 1.21). That tells you there are investors who believe something big is coming. You don’t pay full price for new stock unless you’re expecting serious upside — and that likely means good arbitration news.

Then there’s the convertible loan. It’s got a floor of NOK 1.20, which again shows strong belief from both management and the lender that the share price won’t drop below that. And because the lender can’t convert for three months, there’s a window for the second arbitration decision to land. When Zenith wins, they might repay the loan in cash — or convert it into shares at a much higher price, which would be far less dilutive. Even if the first tranche converts earlier, the second half can’t convert until 90 days later — by then, we should know the outcome.

It’s a well-structured deal, done at a good price, compared to recent share price values and this definitely indicates that there is positive news on the horizon. Andrea said back at the Olso investors presentation that he was convinced that we had won arbitration 2 and it seems that he has convinced some big players that this is the case too. Now all we need to do is trust him to carry out his usual magic on the acquisitions trail and we could have some very interesting revenue streams coming in in the near future. “

Notable procedural development in French courts - Tunisia's inadequate defense submissions have created grounds for potential acceleration of ICC2 ruling timeline. Tunisian side concerned that court is advancing deliberations ahead of schedule - Q2 not Q3. Time to tune in #GameOn

Round two complete, now we await the verdict. ☺️

Whispers in the courtroom as the first moves were made yesterday. Just formalities for now—but the real story will unfold as the week goes on. Stay tuned.⚡️#zenithenergy

History of the Three Arbitrations

ICC1 (International Chamber of Commerce Arbitration – First Case) -Filed in February 2023, seeking $6.5 million for unpaid oil sales.

Ruled in Zenith’s favour in December 2023, proving the strength of its legal case, with the award 45% higher than the originally claimed amount.

ICC2 & ICSID (World Bank Arbitration)

ICC2 & ICSID cases mirror ICC1, reinforcing the likelihood of success.

ICSID arbitration is public, and updates are available on the World Bank’s website.

ICSID ruled in Zenith’s favour in December 2023 as preliminary sentence, further strengthening its case.

Congo & SMP Legal Case - In 2019, Zenith acquired Anglo-African Oil & Gas Congo, which owned the Tilapia oil field. Despite initial optimism, the Congo government did not renew the field license. Zenith still owns the company and is pursuing a $9 million legal case against SMP (a French drilling contractor). The final court ruling is expected in March 2025.

Recent and Future Company Activity

Financial Stability & Future Acquisitions- Reecent share placements raised significant capital, ensuring financial stability for the rest of 2025. Stock price surged 700% between November 2024 and February 2025, making it one of the top gainers on Euronext Growth.

Future Plans & Shareholder Returns - Arbitration proceeds will be used for:

• Shareholder rewards – dividends or buybacks.

• New acquisitions – expanding oil & gas operations.

• Diversification – potential investments in solar & green energy.

CEO’s stance: Long-term shareholders who supported the company should benefit from success via dividend or other forms of cash distribution.

Conclusion

• Zenith’s strategy: Acquire distressed assets, resolve legal disputes, and generate long-term profits.

• Recent legal wins confirm strong case merit, increasing company valuation.

• The company’s future is focused on expanding operations, rewarding investors, and diversifying into energy sectors beyond oil & gas.