Member Info for orslega

It is a clear indicator the way the Supreme Court will go with the decision on this and from the sounds of the latest, very soon.

You either think Andrew Bell is about to pull this off you don’t. I do.

What happens then if he does? Answer, other doors immediately open for RRR, not only in the DRC (already happening) but gold assets in Australia, IPO talked about, Kenya JV, Burkina Faso development etc etc

News rich period indeed, very much looking forward.

The Avis reference in the RNS is very important, this explains why:

In the DRC legal system, an “Avis” is:

👉 A formal advisory opinion issued by a legal authority

Most commonly by:

   •   the Procureur Général (Attorney General) attached to the Cour de cassation (Supreme Court), or

   •   another high-level judicial officer.

It is not the final judgment, but it guides the judges and often indicates how the Court is likely to rule.

⸻

🔍 Why it matters in the Red Rock case

   •   An Avis was issued earlier in the Red Rock matter.

   •   It reportedly supported Red Rock’s position — stating that the contested transaction/sale was unlawful and that Red Rock’s rights should be recognised.

   •   The upcoming Supreme Court judgment is expected to adopt the same reasoning.

In many DRC cases, the Court’s final ruling follows the Avis unless there is a major procedural or factual contradiction — which is rare.

————-

Bring it on. It opens every other door.

"DRC Litigation

A judgment and conclusion of the proceedings between the Company and VUP as referred to in the Company's announcement of 11th June 2025 remain imminent, and the Company is confident that its position will be upheld."

Wonder what the NOMAD wanted to see?

For the record I am not and have never been part of Telegram.

LSE is bad enough.

ps hang around and watch this unfold. It’s going to be interesting.

Blueboy, yes I do have agenda, that’s to make serious money. End of.

I understand why you are bitter.

Just 2 months ago, you posted here:

“You're cherry picking years to support your posts, ignoring facts. Now I've been here 11 or 12 years, look at the SP when I bought. It has never been higher in any year since. Granted this is not relevant to all SH, but it is to the majority.”

Exactly, as I have said timing is everything.

Some you win, some you lose. My advice is to forget about it.

I may lose here yet but I will never belly ache about it. Everyone who invests on AIM knows the risk. Enough said.

ps you have actually made some posts here saying, in effect, “never say never”. Hopefully this is the case for all of us, including you and other long termers.

Banbury the only pressure is I’m heading off for a family lunch now….

So briefly, most of my posting history relates to AIM companies where I have taken a large position where I believe the market cap is not compatible to the potential upside, for whatever reasoning. Blinkx, for example I made a huge sum, that also meant waiting, positioning, but it came.

As I have said so many times, with AIM there will always be the possibility of failure and loss of investment. But the other side is the possibility of success and serious return on investment. Risk v reward.

Always good to have at least one of these “situations” in a portfolio. But timing is everything.

imo the signs currently are that Andrew Bell is about to transform Red Rock. When that happens we can then discuss a realistic market cap, if you’re still around….,

Robins, that analysis summaries very clearly what has been happening in this matter over a long period, a complex process and importantly for reasons explained the dual approach necessary. From a legal perspective (even in the DRC) the Supreme Court ruling finality.

I’m not sure if there is anything further to add other than what CEO Andrew Bell has said very recently in his broadcast. He has clearly stated to shareholders that unless something changes, expect success. He has not changed his stance nor the company’s position, otherwise (as he also stated) the company would have been obligated to say via RNS.

Nothing moves quickly in DRC (huge understatement) but hopefully this saga is about to time out in favour of RRR.

So Andrew Bell is fully expecting a result on 5 below. What will be the award? Not forgetting interest and damages.

He/Koto are also expecting payment of circa $21M any day now from DRC Government to front first x3 factories for social housing prefabs.

Could get very interesting, very soon.

Damages owed by VUP for its actions inside the DRC corporate system

   •   Validating enforceability of payments inside DRC

This is why the Supreme Court decision awarded roughly:

   •   US$2.503m (RRR’s 50.01% share of the $5m payment)

   •   US$2m additional damages

   •   Interest

Totaling US$4.503m under DRC law, separate from arbitration.

⸻

4. Why Both Were Necessary (the key point)

Red Rock fought the same problem on two fronts because:

Arbitration = international enforcement + contractual damages

DRC courts = local enforcement + corporate liability + confirmation of legal rights

Using only one would not have solved the whole dispute:

   •   Arbitration alone cannot clean up bad lower-court decisions in Congo.

   •   Courts alone cannot override an arbitration clause.

   •   Enforcement in the DRC often requires a domestic court confirmation.

   •   International enforcement (outside DRC) requires the arbitration award.

So the dual approach maximised recoverability.

⸻

5. Why the Supreme Court decision now matters for the arbitration

The arbitrator reportedly said on 15 January 2025:

   •   The parties should resolve remaining issues themselves

   •   The arbitrator wanted clarity from Congolese law / Congolese courts, not just contract law

   •   A Supreme Court ruling removes uncertainties about:

      •   who owned what

      •   who owed what

      •   which previous judgments were valid

      •   VUP’s liability in the DRC

This Supreme Court ruling strengthens Red Rock’s hand in finalising and enforcing the arbitration award.

⸻

Summary in One Sentence

Red Rock needed arbitration to enforce the contract internationally and get the big financial award, and it needed the DRC Supreme Court to resolve corporate law issues, clean up lower-court contradictions, and secure local enforceability inside the DRC — therefore both routes were essential.

Here is the clear, simple explanation of why Red Rock had both an arbitration AND a Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation) case in the DRC.

It might seem confusing, but once you see the structure it is clear.

⸻

1. The Dispute Had Two Legal Tracks Because There Were Two Different Types of obligations

Red Rock’s fight with VUP (its former partner) involved:

A. Contractual obligations

   •   These were covered by an arbitration clause in the joint-venture agreements.

   •   Anything about the contract, the JV rights, breach of agreements, and performance must legally go to arbitration, not the courts.

B. Corporate / statutory obligations in the DRC

   •   These relate to the actions of VUP as a Congolese company, including company law violations, damages, registration issues, and enforcement of payments.

   •   These kinds of issues must be handled by DRC courts, and ultimately can reach the Cour de Cassation (the DRC Supreme Court in commercial matters).

Because both streams existed, Red Rock had to run both processes in parallel.

⸻

2. Why Red Rock Went to Arbitration

Reason:

The joint-venture agreement Red Rock had with VUP contained a binding arbitration clause.

This means:

   •   Any dispute arising from the JV contract cannot be heard by normal courts first.

   •   The arbitrator has authority to decide on:

      •   Ownership percentage

      •   Contractual payments

      •   JV obligations

      •   Whether VUP breached the agreement

   •   Red Rock therefore used arbitration mainly to obtain a money award for the contractual breach.

Goal of arbitration:

   •   To obtain a final financial award enforceable internationally (this is why arbitration is powerful).

⸻

3. Why Red Rock ALSO Went to the Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation)

Arbitration cannot resolve everything, especially:

   •   Corporate law matters

   •   Challenges to lower DRC court rulings

   •   Issues of “res judicata” (whether earlier judgments were valid)

   •   Damages arising under DRC company law, not contractual law

   •   Enforcement issues tied to the Congolese judicial system itself

Red Rock went to the DRC Supreme Court for two main reasons:

1. To overturn or clarify earlier first-instance judgments

Some lower courts had made contradictory or confusing comments that could weaken enforcement.

Red Rock needed the Cour de Cassation to confirm the correct legal position.

2. To establish VUP’s legal liability under DRC law (not just under the contract)

The Supreme Court ruling related to:

   •   DRC company law

   •   Red Rock’s 50.01% entitlement

   •   The first US$5m payment due

   •   Damages owed by VUP for its actions inside the DRC corporate system

   •   Validating enforceability of payme

Your conclusion is completely inaccurate like most of your posts here.

Banbury, I think we all know your views, you've said so, many many times - and recently:

"Arbitration is dead IMO. This is the consolation prize if it comes off.

Don't get why anybody doing any due dilligence would touch a company with a track record and balance sheet like RRR. But we will see. "

So yes, we will see and very soon, on both. Not my opinion, Andrew Bell has stated exactly that.

DRC Social Housing deal - so this is all about whether people think Andrew Bell will pull this off. Currently very few do possibly tainted by the past, I get that but I wasn't around then. I'm looking forward.

So at 7.55 min in, he makes the point ..."Ministry of Rural development are right behind us......the Government (that will mean the President's approval) are funding the first 3 factories (locations already sited)." Bell then adds "we should be able to announce shortly that the money has been received and the order placed and at that point everyone will realise this is real".

Wonder what will the market might think of that then?

This has been explained as a long term DRC government partly self funding initiative (145 factories planned over 145 territories in the DRC, each to produce 3,000 social housing units per annum). That obviously needs major assets ie "ready to go" gold/copper/cobalt mining licences to be offered by the Presidential Office. No point setting off on such a massive project and then assets turn out not to meet the financial requirements.

Of course it's all nonsense..........until it happens.

Blueboy, some will agree with you, certainly those who invested years ago, I get that.

But those who have arrived recently will not agree and will definitely see an opportunity to make a shed load.

Let’s see…..we will know soon enough.

“ Dicko crowing about the SP being up the last few months but conveniently ignoring the utter decimation over the last few years”.

That’s the point, timing is everything with AIM. Some will/have lost big time some win, big time.

imo RRR have turned the corner, Bell has fully explained what’s happening right now - you either think he’s there or you don’t.

I’m here to make serious money. Am in profit on a large holding and very happy to see this unfold. Exciting times.

This week coming is a big turning point.

Good luck to all RRR holders.

Banbury you mentioned that AB interview today was with Stockbox.

But as posted before it’s actually with Proactive, I’m sure you wouldn’t want to miss it:

https://x.com/abell2019/status/1987859020716089741?s=46&t=2UqfzXPuF4FvtQuH1teczw

last rns:

“upon signature of that memorandum the ministry has agreed to mobilise funding for the purchase and commissioning of three factories to kick-start production of social housing, with each factory capable of producing at least 3000 units a year.”

nomad has a major problem. it’s all bull**** then according to you.

do you not think the nomad might have insisted on seeing the legal documentation?

each to their own. these boards are full of s***.

i’m looking forward to next news.

Theeeduke, as Banbury says, give it a rest. You might not be invested but for sure you will try and trade the *ss off it….as before. Remember. How much did you make? Tell everyone.

DAL. How many times does it need explaining to you, it was a good deal for RRR, and likely to complete - researched investors here have acknowledged and explained why.

Moving on, what happens here when $22.5M lands in the PPP JV?

ps are you in yet? 🙄

Plus what happens when Koto (RRR 50% JV partner) announces that it has received $22.5M from DRC government to fund 3 factories for prefabricated social housing plants.

Maybe then market might just realise DRC government are extremely serious.

Indeed it will.

Bring it ion.

Yep.

More AI recap:

Here’s a detailed explanation of the reported US$2.5 million judgment in favour of Red Rock Resources plc (Red Rock) and how it fits into the larger dispute in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) with its erstwhile partner Vumilia Pendeza S.A. (VUP).

⸻

✅ What the US$2.5 m relates to

   •   Red Rock states that its 100%­-owned DRC subsidiary obtained a final and executory judgment for US$2.5 million, being its 50.1% share of a US$5 million payment already made by a buyer to VUP in relation to certain copper/cobalt assets. 

   •   In addition to the US$2.5 m, Red Rock mentions that it has also been awarded US$2 million in damages and interest in respect of the same payment. 

   •   The underlying dispute: Red Rock had a 50.1% joint-venture (JV) interest in assets in the DRC via the VUP JV. They allege that VUP and/or a buyer sold the JV assets (or a sale was effected) behind Red Rock’s back, compromising Red Rock’s interest. 

   •   Specifically: A US$20 million sale of the assets is alleged; US$5 million of that was paid to VUP and US$15 million remains unpaid. Red Rock’s 50.1% share of the US$5 million is this US$2.5 m judgment. 

⸻

   •   Although the judgment has been obtained for the US$2.5 m (plus the US$2 m in damages/interest), Red Rock still needs to enforce that judgment and receive cleared funds.

   •   Beyond the US$5 m already paid, Red Rock is still arbitrating for its share (50.1%) of the US$15 m unpaid balance. So the US$2.5 m is only part of the claim. 

   •   The legal/judicial environment in the DRC is complex, and Red Rock has pointed to delays (for example, due to elections) and the requirement of translations, enforcement steps etc. 

⸻

🎯 Why this matters

   •   For Red Rock, the US$2.5 m judgment validates its legal claim and strengthens its negotiating/enforcement position.

   •   However, as the company itself notes, the judgment doesn’t equate to guaranteed cash immediately — enforcement, timing, counter-parties and jurisdictional issues remain.

   •   Moreover, since the larger unpaid sum (US$15 m) is still under arbitration, a favourable outcome there would have far greater impact than just the US$2.5 m.

⸻

Indeed. Andrew Bell was clear last week in his broadcast that he’s in the DRC not only there for PPP JV progress but the Arbitration closure. He’s still there today, he was very upbeat.

This week then, both, imo.

In which case, how much then is the total arbitration award, both the original and the $15M claim, plus damages and interest?

Risk or reward, indeed?