Member Info for Nordinvestor

Https://www.youtube.com/live/W5cBq7qIup4

@20:17

"The ICC Annulment decision from the Swiss Federal Court should come soon."

TLOA:

https://x.com/LadyOfAim/status/2062464676592799760

Big changes are coming on ICC2 annulment in the next week or two - positive momentum… unless you’re Cecilia #ICC2

The transcript made a minor mistake. It should be 20th and the 24th of April.

From 14:25 in the video:

"The final hearing in the building of the World Bank has taken place between the 20th and the 24th of February, and the matter is now in the hands of the court, receiving a few additional documents in writing from us, what is called the post-hearing scripts. Our damage claim stands at 573 million, I can say that we left Paris believing we had presented the strongest case in Zenith arbitration history, and there are a few specific reasons for that confidence.

First, Tunisian party made a formal written admission during these recent proceedings that Zenith owns two concessions belonging to EPT and the related oil produce. Second, Charles Michel, as an additional lawyer in the final part of the arbitration process, made a contribution that went beyond his legal role. His practical understanding of how Tunisia actually operates at government level, built from years of direct senior engagement during his time as president of the European Council, materially strengthened our preparation our attitude and our strategic handling of the case. Third, the cross-examination. It was a very taxing exercise. I was personally examined for over five hours. When you are telling the truth, on the other side, consistency and the pressure become much easier. The same could not be said for the opposing witnesses. Contradiction emerged that we believe strengthen our case considerably. Finally, two days after the Tunisian delegation returned from Paris, the Ministry of Industry, Mines and Hydrocarbon, the Minister directly responsible for the conduct of the concession and the negotiation in court, and the litigation in court, was dismissed. Government do not remove the responsible Minister after proceeding, they believe, went well. We will update shareholder as the process continues."

Zenith Energy | Live 9.30 (CET) CEO Andrea Cattaneo comments on FY 2025/26

https://www.youtube.com/live/W5cBq7qIup4

Https://analystgroup.se/kommentarer/comment-on-zeniths-preliminary-financial-results-for-the-year-ended-march-31-2026/

Summary

The financial year ended March 31, 2026, represents a period of substantial strategic advancement across all three of Zenith’s value pillars. The solar platform has been scaled from under 100 MWp to over 180 MWp in less than 12 months, independently valued at EUR 54.7m, and is now approaching its first construction milestone. The ICSID arbitration has reached the post-hearing phase, whereby Analyst Group estimate a probability of 68% for a favorable outcome where the evidentiary record strengthened by recent developments. The uranium portfolio has been structured for independent development through Reveille Resources, preserving optionality while simplifying Zenith’s corporate narrative. While the Company’s current cash position reflects the significant capital deployed toward solar acquisitions during the period, post-period financings and the planned divestment of 50 MWp of solar assets provide a credible pathway to strengthened liquidity over the coming quarters.

Taken together, the combination of a near-term ICSID decision, the commencement of solar construction, the planned asset divestments, and the progression of the Reveille listing provides Zenith with an concentrated set of value catalysts over the next 6-12 months, establishing a strong foundation for potential value realization across the Company’s investment case.

And Tunisia's behavior at the Swiss Court? Entirely consistent with everything else. They missed the response deadline entirely. Instead of filing a defence, they argued the Swiss Court has no jurisdiction — and that the annulment proceedings should be heard in Tunisia. An ICC arbitration heard in Paris, challenged before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court under Swiss law, being asked to relocate to the country that is the respondent. It is legally absurd, and it is the latest in a long, documented pattern of obstruction designed not to win on the merits but to delay, exhaust and frustrate. The Swiss Court has given no indication of accepting it.

The bottom line is this: Zenith has won the one case that was fairly decided, is actively challenging the one that wasn't on grounds of tribunal corruption, and has just put its strongest-ever legal team through its most important hearing — against an opponent whose own written admissions contradicted their witnesses, whose minister lost his job two days after the delegation came home, and whose response to an active Swiss court proceeding was to argue it should be moved to Tunisia. Every single proceeding tells the same story: a company with a documented, treaty-based case built on years of formally published evidence, facing a state that cannot stop generating proof of its own misconduct. The damages figure has grown from $503 million to $572.65 million since October 2024 and is still rising. Tunisia's strategy of exhausting Zenith financially has demonstrably failed — the company has self-funded every proceeding without third-party litigation support and walked into Paris with the strongest legal team it has ever assembled.

What we have after this interview is not hope or speculation — it is a detailed, evidence-based picture of a hearing that went well by every measurable indicator available to us. A CEO who has sat through three international arbitrations telling shareholders in carefully chosen but unambiguous language that this was the strongest case of the three. A former President of the European Council whose appointment was followed five days later by the first formal concession Tunisia had made in years. An opposing legal team that contradicted its own government's written position under oath. A minister dismissed within 48 hours of the delegation's return. And an ICC-2 annulment proceeding that the market has written off as a loss but which is in fact a live challenge to a compromised process, being heard by a court whose jurisdiction Tunisia has already failed to contest within its own deadlines. The pieces are all there. Investors who are paying attention will know what to do with them.

"I can say that we left Paris believing that Zenith group three claimants British companies presented a very strong case supported by evidence, testimony and legal argument." Then: "My impression was that it was a good hearing in which I felt the Zenith company case were the strongest." Then: "Our confidence today is not simply based on internal opinion or optimism but seen evidence, witnesses, and legal argument tested extensively during a full adversarial hearing and appear to be strong."

A director who thought the hearing had gone badly would not use that language. A director who thought it had gone well but was legally constrained from saying so would use exactly that language. He's been through three of these now. This is not promotional optimism — it is a considered assessment from someone who knows what a strong hearing looks like.

To back up that Zenith feels things have gone well and the Tunisians feel things have gone badly Andrea also mentioned the massive issues that greeted the Tunisian arbitration delegation on their return home as soon as the arbitration was over. A mere two days after the Tunisian delegation returned from Paris, the Minister of Industry, Mines and Hydrocarbons — the minister directly responsible for the conduct of the concessions — was dismissed. Changes to Tunisia's legal representation were also reported. Zenith didn't cause that and can't control it. It is difficult to interpret it any other way than the Tunisians thinking that ICSID had gone really badly.

As Andrea said in the interview: "The scale of the reaction demonstrates how seriously this arbitration is being viewed within Tunisia itself and as well what is their perception of how it went in Paris." Governments don't sack responsible ministers after proceedings they think went well.

Finally there is what Andrea did not say which is as important as what he did say. Did anyone else notice how AC doesn't mention ICC-2 once in the entire interview. Obviously he does not want to irritate the current tribunal by slagging off their predecessors so he does not mention it at all – but we should remember that ICC-2 is not a closed loss. It is a live annulment application before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, grounded in documented procedural irregularities and the discovery of undisclosed connections between two members of the tribunal — including its Chair — and the Republic of Tunisia. That is a challenge to the integrity of the process itself, not a routine appeal.

One of the most revealing moments in the entire interview was Cattaneo's unusual candor about how previous hearings were handled. He acknowledged directly — on the record, in front of shareholders — that despite having strong cases, Zenith had not been aggressive or forensic enough in earlier proceedings. That is a significant admission from a CEO, and it matters because of what came next. Rather than glossing over the weakness, he explained precisely what was done about it: every area where the team was merely average was identified, and a specialist was brought in to cover it. Five world-class lawyers, each chosen for a specific gap, with no dimension of the case left below the highest possible standard. His conclusion speaks for itself: "I think that we can say in front of the shareholders we couldn't do better than that."

What makes this significant is the timing of the appointments. Ben Juratowitch KC and Matthieu Gregoire from Essex Court Chambers arrived in December 2025 — five months after the ICC-2 result. Charles Michel and Julie Spinelli in April 2026. What looked at the time like routine team expansion was actually a systematic rebuild informed directly by lessons from a hearing Zenith believed was compromised. The team that walked into the ICSID hearing was constructed specifically for this moment.

And what did that team deliver in the room? Cattaneo is specific: "Our lawyers were extremely effective in using that material during questioning." The cross-examination was forensically prepared, with documents deployed at precisely the right moments. The result was Tunisia's witnesses contradicting themselves and their own government's written positions in front of the tribunal.

The interview also gives us a glimpse into the importance of Charles Michel to the arbitration process. His contribution is described in detail for the first time in this interview and although he is a top lawyer his main contribution wasn't legal — it was intelligence. As Andrea said, "What impressed me most was not simply his understanding of how the Tunisia system is supposed to function institutionally but also his practical understanding of how things actually operate in reality."

That contextual depth — built from years of direct senior engagement with Tunisia — provided strategic understanding that no conventional legal appointment could have offered. As AC put it: "This contribution materially strengthens our preparation and strategic understanding and handling of the case." Charles Michel was vital in the room when it mattered, not just on the letterhead.

Obviously, Andrea did not explicitly say that Zenith had won the arbitration. As a listed company director with active proceedings still ongoing, he cannot possibly claim victory and he stated this explicitly. But read what he actually says alongside those caveats.

Andrea said that he was cross-examined personally for over five hours and his explanation for how he held up under that pressure is pointed: "When you are simply telling the truth it becomes much easier to remain consistent even under pressure." The implication about Tunisia's witnesses — that they were not telling the truth and therefore cracked — is obvious. And he confirms it directly: "There were certainly moments where contradiction emerged in the opposite camp that strengthened our case considerably."

This is not surprising when we consider what cross-examination material Zenith's lawyers had available. The November 2025 RNS documented that Tunisia forcibly ordered Zenith to empty storage tanks on safety grounds — despite an independent inspection four days prior confirming zero safety risk — then sold the transferred oil without authorization and refused to remit the proceeds, all while ICSID proceedings were live.

Zenith meanwhile absorbed approximately $2 million in ongoing costs — salaries, environmental compliance, site upkeep — throughout the entire obstruction period. They kept paying while being denied every penny of revenue. All of that is documented, dated, and formally published. Zenith's lawyers had it ready. The contradictions that emerged weren't accidental — they were the result of forensically prepared cross-examination against a paper trail that Tunisia could not explain away.

Not mentioned in the interview itself but directly relevant to what the tribunal has in front of it was the information from the April 14th RNS disclosed that the Robbana site has been extensively vandalised and stripped of critical equipment, rendering it entirely non-operational for at least a year — while ICSID proceedings were live.

Andrea flagged the "highly unusual nature and timing" of this very deliberately. In arbitration terms, asset destruction during live proceedings goes directly to ongoing damages and to the conduct of the state itself. It is not a side issue — it is additional evidence of the same pattern the tribunal is already examining, and it stacks rehabilitation costs and lost production onto a damages figure that has already grown from $503 million to $572.65 million since October 2024.

Great post by TheLondonOiler

Zenith Energy (ZEN) — What the post-hearing CEO interview actually tells us

Most people will have quickly listened to Andrea's latest CEO interview and moved on. I think that's a mistake. When you read a transcript carefully — and layer in the full RNS history — there is considerably more new information than is immediately apparent.

Everyone knows about the surprise April 14th RNS where Tunisia formally admitted in writing that Zenith owns the concessions and the oil. What we didn't know until this interview is that Tunisia's witnesses then walked into the Paris hearing and tried to contradict that admission in front of the tribunal — with Zenith's lawyers holding the document. That's not just a weak position. That's a strategically incoherent one. Their own lawyers took a formally admitted position into a courtroom and argued against it under oath. The more their witnesses denied or minimized Zenith's rights, the more they contradicted their own government's formal written position.

AC describes the moment with barely concealed disbelief — Tunisia apparently argued that the oil they exported internationally without authorization and without paying Zenith was "not actually robbed but was simply them desiring to keep the oil in a safer way for us." He wasn't just being colourful. That position was advanced in front of the tribunal in real time, against a written admission made days earlier. It is the legal equivalent of a bank robber telling the court he did not steal the money from a bank but was just keeping the money under his bed without telling them in order to keep it safe for the bank.

So rather than the April 14th admission softening the dispute ahead of the hearing, it became a trap that Tunisia walked straight into. Every denial in the hearing room compounded the contradiction.

Another key element that Andrea explains in this interview is Charles Michel's contribution to the tribunal. What is really interesting here is the timescale. Charles Michel was appointed on 9 April 2026 and Tunisia makes its first formal concession in years of proceedings just five days later on 14 April and with the hearing beginning on 20 April. Five days. Draw your own conclusions.

There is active social media discussion in Tunisia attributing this admission directly to Michel's relationships at the highest levels of the Tunisian government and although this is unverified and shouldn't be stated as fact, the timing is what it is and the timing is a fact. His RNS biography was notably specific about his "direct engagement with Tunisia at the highest level" during his time as President of the European Council. That language wasn't accidental.

In my view the most important part of the interview was the bit where they talked about the cross-examinations carried out by both sides.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdYRj44Io7A

An interesting aspect concerns the comparison with the nearby Novazza site. Environmental assessments there began early and could provide comparable data, given the geological proximity between the two areas. However, each mineral deposit has its own characteristics, and it's not possible to automatically transfer results from one site to another.

For now, there is no definitive decision: the results of the environmental and technical assessments will be crucial to determining whether the project can evolve or remain at the exploratory stage . The return of uranium to Val Vedello, rather than marking the reopening of the mine, represents the resumption of a question that seemed to have been resolved in Italy for almost forty years: what role can nuclear power play in the country's energy future?

How much uranium could there really be under the mountain in Val Vedello?

The factor that has brought attention back to the Valtellina site concerns the historical estimates developed during previous exploration campaigns. According to historical assessments attributed to Agip Nucleare and CNEN, the area could contain approximately 6,000 tons of uranium oxide (U₃O₈) , a much higher value than the estimates associated with the Novazza site in the province of Bergamo, which have historically been around 1,000 tons of metallic uranium.

These numbers, if confirmed by modern investigations, would make the site one of the most significant at the national level. But here comes into play a technical aspect often overlooked in public debate: a historical estimate does not equate to an economically extractable reserve .

To transform a geological presence into a real mineral resource, in-depth checks are required that include:

actual amount of the mineral present ;

uranium concentration in rocks ;

technical accessibility of the warehouse ;

extraction and treatment costs ;

environmental compatibility ;

economic sustainability of the project .

According to historical documentation, Val Vedello already has a significant underground development network, with approximately 11 kilometers of tunnels and tens of thousands of meters of previous drilling , an element that would theoretically reduce the costs of future exploration compared to a completely new site.

The company has established a dedicated unit for Italian projects, with the goal of managing authorization procedures and collecting updated data. The current phase is not focused on production, but rather on gathering technical information to determine whether the potential estimated decades ago is still valuable by modern standards.

Environment, safety and impact on the territory: the real crux of the matter

While the economic and strategic issue is important, the environmental question remains the central point of the entire project .

Zenith Energy began operations following the path established by Italian legislation on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) , a procedure used to preventively verify the effects that any research activities could have on the local area.

The aspects to be verified include:

natural radioactivity of the area ;

effects on surface and groundwater ;

impact on Alpine ecosystems ;

management of any mining waste ;

safety for the population and workers .

The company has publicly stated its intention to maintain a dialogue with local authorities and communities throughout the authorization process. At the same time, the issue continues to generate differing opinions: on the one hand, those who see uranium as a potential lever for strengthening national energy autonomy; on the other, those who fear environmental impacts and believe that nuclear power does not represent a rapid response to the energy transition.

The return of uranium to Val Vedello: why the topic has become relevant again

After decades of virtual inactivity, the Vedello Valley is back at the center of the Italian energy debate . The mountainous area located in the municipality of Piateda , in the province of Sondrio , is home to one of the most historically cited mining sites when discussing Italian uranium resources. Today, the dossier has been reopened by the Canadian company Zenith Energy , which has initiated a new preliminary phase of study and environmental assessment to understand the true value of the deposit.

This interest doesn't come out of nowhere. In recent years, energy security has once again become a central theme in European strategies , especially after international crises, energy market volatility, and geopolitical tensions that have highlighted dependence on imports. In this context, the topic of nuclear energy has re-entered public debate, and consequently, so has that of uranium supplies.

The first research activities in Val Vedello date back to the 1950s and 1980s, during the Italian nuclear program. Exploration was conducted by AGIP Nucleare as part of initiatives coordinated by the National Committee for Nuclear Energy (CNEN). During those years, geological surveys, drilling, and underground infrastructure were carried out, allowing the identification of mineralized concentrations containing uranium.

However, it is important to underline a fundamental point: Val Vedello is not an active mine and there is currently no permit for uranium extraction . The ongoing activity concerns only the preliminary phase of environmental analysis and verification aimed at determining whether the technical and regulatory conditions exist for any future activities.

Https://valtellinamobile.it/uranio-in-val-vedello/

That's not true. Yesterday's increase was largely due to the Norwegian Investornytt article that I posted before.

https://www.investornytt.no/bors/dette-selskapet-kan-dobles-pa-tre-fire-uker/532754

"The final agreed gross consideration of approximately US$4.3 million compares favourably with the approximately US$2 million indicative offers previously

announced by the Company."

What a deal by AC. I am pleasantly surprised by this news release.

Https://live.euronext.com/en/products/equities/company-news/2026-05-22-sale-zen-260-drilling-rig-us43-million

Political tailwind for nuclear power and uranium spin-out In parallel with the solar energy investment, Zenith is benefiting from macroeconomic and political changes in Italy. In May 2026, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni confirmed that the government will adopt new legislation to reintroduce nuclear power in the country by the summer, after decades of nuclear shutdown. This coincides perfectly with Zenith's strategic timeline. The company submitted its Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the Novazza uranium project in April 2026. In order to highlight the underlying values ​​in this raw material portfolio, Zenith is now carrying out a so-called "spin-out" of the uranium assets into the pure-play company Reveille Resources. This will make it possible to highlight and release significant value directly to existing shareholders. Attractive technical entry point with issue discount From a market technical perspective, the timing for an entry point appears favorable. After a significant price increase earlier this spring, the share has undergone a healthy correction on low volume and is now consolidating around an established technical support level of approximately 70–73 øre on the Oslo Stock Exchange. The most interesting thing for new investors is that the latest capital raising in April was carried out at a price of 87 øre. This means that in today's market, shares can be acquired at a significant discount compared to what professional and institutional investors recently paid to enter the company.

(End of Translation)