AVZ Minerals faces a recovery test at Manono (formerly ASX: AVZ)

AVZ Minerals is no longer a conventional lithium investment. Its shares do not trade, its flagship project remains contested, and the central valuation question has shifted from mine development to legal and commercial recovery.

That distinction matters. Manono’s exceptional geological scale still gives AVZ something potentially valuable to negotiate around, but the company must convert disputed rights into an enforceable settlement, compensation payment or restored economic interest. Until that happens, shareholders own an illiquid claim whose eventual value depends on litigation, funding, diplomacy and counterparties.

As of July 2026, AVZ’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes arbitration against the Democratic Republic of the Congo is suspended for a further three months. Earlier interim protections have been lifted, funding discussions are continuing, and no final commercial resolution has been announced.

Why is AVZ Minerals no longer an ASX trade and what does that change for shareholders?

AVZ entered a trading halt on 9 May 2022 and was suspended from quotation shortly afterwards as uncertainty intensified around its ownership and mining rights at Manono. After remaining suspended continuously for two years, AVZ was removed from the Australian Securities Exchange’s official list on 13 May 2024.

Existing shares did not disappear when the company was delisted. Investors remained shareholders in an unlisted public company, but they lost the liquidity, regular price discovery and straightforward brokerage access associated with an ASX listing. AVZ continues as an unlisted disclosing entity and publishes updates through its own website.

The A$0.78 figure still shown by some market-data services is AVZ’s historical closing price from 6 May 2022. It is not a current market price. Calculating five-day performance, a 52-week range, technical support levels or a live market capitalisation from that number would create a misleading impression that an active market still exists.

This also means AVZ cannot be assessed like a normal speculative lithium stock. Shareholders cannot readily respond to news, reduce their position or establish how much the market is willing to pay for the evolving legal claim. Any private transfer would require a willing buyer, appropriate documentation and agreement on a price without the benefit of continuous exchange trading.

A future relisting is theoretically possible, but it would require the company to satisfy the relevant exchange’s admission requirements. More importantly, a relisting would probably need a clearer asset position, sustainable funding and sufficiently complete financial disclosure. It should therefore be viewed as a possible consequence of a successful recovery, not the immediate recovery mechanism itself.

What economic interest does AVZ still claim in Manono and how secure is that position?

AVZ says it holds its Manono interest through subsidiaries and Dathcom Mining SA, the Congolese joint venture historically associated with the project. The company has claimed a 75% economic interest following its acquisition of additional Dathomir shares, but the practical effect of that ownership remains entangled with disputes over permits, joint venture rights and actions taken by Congolese authorities.

The geological attraction is substantial. AVZ’s January 2024 update reported a combined Manono mineral resource of approximately 842 million tonnes grading 1.61% lithium oxide across the Roche Dure and Carrière de l’Este deposits. Around 500 million tonnes were classified in the measured and indicated categories. Those figures help explain why governments, state-owned entities and international mining companies continue to contest or pursue different parts of the district.

Yet a mineral resource is not the same as a legally controlled, financed mine. To capture development value, a company normally needs uncontested tenure, an exploitation permit, environmental approvals, infrastructure, construction funding, logistics and reliable access to customers. AVZ currently faces uncertainty near the top of that sequence, before most conventional project-finance assumptions can be applied.

Its 2020 definitive feasibility study also belongs to a different commercial period. That study contemplated a large-scale operation producing spodumene concentrate and primary lithium sulphate, but its capital costs, product prices, transport assumptions and construction schedule cannot simply be rolled forward into 2026. Even a complete restoration of AVZ’s position would require substantial technical and economic updating.

For shareholders, Manono’s size strengthens the potential bargaining position but does not establish a recoverable valuation. The relevant questions are which rights can be upheld, what counterparties will recognise them and what portion of the project’s economic value could ultimately reach AVZ after funding costs, legal expenses and settlement terms.

Why do recent arbitration wins matter without yet delivering cash or control of the project?

AVZ has pursued several proceedings rather than one all-encompassing case. These include International Chamber of Commerce disputes involving corporate and joint venture matters, as well as the larger state-level arbitration against the Democratic Republic of the Congo at ICSID.

In July 2025, AVZ announced that an ICC tribunal had found that it legally acquired the disputed Dathomir shares. That decision supports an important part of the company’s claimed ownership chain. AVZ also reported a separate tribunal decision involving the liquidation of an accrued €39 million penalty against state miner La Congolaise d’Exploitation Minière, commonly known as Cominière.

These outcomes are meaningful because they can narrow disputed issues, validate elements of AVZ’s case and improve its position in negotiations. They also show that the company has achieved substantive legal success rather than merely keeping proceedings alive.

However, a favourable tribunal ruling does not automatically produce cash. A company may still need to enforce an award, identify recoverable assets, resist challenges or negotiate payment. Similarly, confirmation that AVZ acquired particular shares does not by itself restore a mining permit, remove competing claims or put the company back in physical control of Manono.

The more consequential ICSID proceeding remains unresolved. In January 2024, the tribunal issued interim orders intended to protect Dathcom’s position and have it reflected as the holder of the disputed permit while the case continued. The tribunal later determined that it could not impose the financial penalty AVZ had requested for alleged non-compliance.

In April 2026, the arbitration was suspended for another three months and the interim orders were lifted. Either party may seek new provisional measures if the arbitration resumes and circumstances justify them, but the removal of the previous protections reduces the value of treating those orders as a continuing legal shield.

The next important development is therefore not another broadly positive legal headline. It is evidence that AVZ can turn its accumulated decisions and claims into an enforceable final award or a binding commercial settlement with a clear payment mechanism.

How does the KoBold pathway differ from a courtroom victory or a return to project ownership?

KoBold Metals emerged as a possible commercial route through the Manono deadlock amid greater United States interest in diversifying critical-mineral supply chains. Public statements described a conditional framework concerning a potential transaction involving AVZ’s interests, while the Congolese government separately supported KoBold’s proposed involvement in the southern part of Manono.

A negotiated transaction could be faster and more practical than waiting for every legal proceeding to reach a final conclusion. KoBold could potentially bring capital, political alignment and technical capability, while AVZ could exchange contested rights for cash, a retained interest, royalties or another negotiated form of participation.

But a framework is not a completed acquisition. Any transaction would need to resolve questions involving the Congolese state, AVZ, Dathcom, existing commercial partners and the legal effect of prior decisions. Regulatory approvals, ownership verification and transaction financing could all become conditions.

The central issue for AVZ shareholders is the structure, not simply the headline value. A large gross transaction figure could be reduced by secured funding, taxes, legal costs, partner entitlements and transaction expenses. Payment timing also matters. Upfront cash has a very different risk profile from deferred consideration tied to permits, construction or production.

AVZ’s April 2026 update referred to continuing funding discussions and a negotiated outcome but did not announce a binding sale to KoBold. Investors should therefore separate the existence of a plausible settlement route from evidence that the route has been completed.

A credible commercial resolution would need to identify the purchaser, asset perimeter, gross consideration, payment schedule, conditions precedent, liabilities assumed and the amount expected to remain for AVZ. Until those details are disclosed, KoBold remains part of the recovery thesis rather than proof of recovery.

What does rival development at Manono mean for AVZ’s negotiating leverage and downside risk?

Zijin Mining and Cominière have been advancing the northern part of the broader Manono district through Manono Lithium SAS, in which Zijin has reported a 61% interest and Cominière a 39% interest. Production was publicly targeted to begin in June 2026, although AVZ’s latest update did not confirm whether that target had been achieved.

Physical development creates a complicated two-sided effect. On one side, it demonstrates that Manono is not merely a remote exploration concept. Serious counterparties are willing to invest in infrastructure and attempt to bring lithium into production, which validates the strategic relevance of the district.

On the other side, development by a competing group can weaken AVZ’s practical leverage if roads, plant, permits and operating control become more deeply embedded around an alternative ownership structure. Even if AVZ ultimately proves that rights were mishandled, unwinding an operating project may be more difficult than addressing a dormant licence.

This can push the dispute towards compensation rather than physical restoration. Governments and commercial parties may prefer a negotiated payment that leaves current development arrangements intact. For AVZ, that could shorten the route to value but also cap its participation in Manono’s long-term production upside.

The rival development timeline also increases urgency. AVZ must preserve evidence, fund its claims and keep potential settlement partners engaged while the underlying district changes around it. Delay is no longer neutral simply because the resource remains in the ground.

The lifting of the ICSID interim orders adds to this tension. It does not decide the final merits of AVZ’s case, but it reduces the basis for assuming that activities will remain frozen while negotiations continue. Shareholders should monitor whether the suspension produces a settlement or merely gives other parties more time to consolidate their position.

Can AVZ fund a long legal campaign without giving away too much of any eventual recovery?

AVZ is not generating operating revenue from Manono. Its survival therefore depends on external funding, careful expenditure and the willingness of counterparties to support a process whose timing and proceeds remain uncertain.

The company confirmed in January 2026 that it had received the balance of funds required under a pre-completion funding agreement with Suzhou CATH Energy Technologies. AVZ and its subsidiaries granted security to CATH, and the end date for satisfying or waiving conditions under the associated transaction implementation agreement was extended to 31 December 2029, unless the parties agree otherwise.

That backing helps AVZ continue negotiations and legal work. It also shows that a major battery-sector participant still sees enough potential value to provide capital. Without such funding, AVZ could face pressure to abandon proceedings or accept a deeply discounted settlement.

The counterweight is the recovery waterfall. Secured funding is not free capital. Depending on the final agreements and outcome, lenders, strategic partners and litigation-related obligations may have claims that are satisfied before residual value becomes available to ordinary shareholders.

Investors therefore need more than confirmation that AVZ has obtained another facility. They need to understand how much has been drawn, what security has been granted, what repayment or transaction rights attach to the money, and how the arrangements affect AVZ’s bargaining flexibility.

The longer the dispute continues, the more this distinction matters. A US$500 million settlement does not necessarily imply US$500 million attributable to AVZ shareholders. The appropriate calculation begins with gross proceeds and deducts partner interests, secured obligations, professional costs, taxes and any reinvestment required before considering a possible shareholder distribution.

Funding can preserve the option value of the claim. Excessive funding costs can also consume that option value. Both propositions can be true at the same time.

How should shareholders interpret the separate ASIC case against AVZ and two directors?

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission commenced Federal Court proceedings in November 2025 against AVZ, managing director Nigel Ferguson and technical director Graeme Johnston.

ASIC alleges that AVZ failed to meet continuous disclosure obligations and engaged in misleading conduct concerning disputes affecting the company’s claimed interest in Manono. It also alleges that the two directors breached their duties and authorised or permitted announcements that were false, misleading or omitted relevant information.

These are allegations, not findings. AVZ has denied them and said it intends to defend the proceeding. The eventual outcome will depend on the evidence and the Federal Court process.

The ASIC case is separate from whether AVZ possesses valid rights against parties in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. AVZ could theoretically succeed in an international dispute while facing an adverse Australian disclosure judgment, or defend the ASIC proceeding while failing to secure a commercial outcome at Manono.

Nevertheless, the proceedings overlap at the level of governance and shareholder confidence. The allegations relate to information investors received before trading stopped, when AVZ’s market value depended heavily on the perceived security of its Manono interest. They therefore raise questions about disclosure controls, board oversight and the reliability of historical representations.

The practical consequences could include legal costs, penalties and management distraction. The case also complicates any future capital raising or relisting because new investors would likely demand extensive due diligence around both the asset dispute and the company’s disclosure history.

Shareholders should follow the ASIC proceeding as its own risk stream. A positive Manono announcement should not be treated as resolving it, and progress in the Australian case should not be mistaken for progress towards monetising Manono.

Which milestones would show that AVZ is moving from legal survival toward shareholder value?

The first milestone is a clear explanation of what happens after the current three-month ICSID suspension. A further pause may be constructive if parties are exchanging executable settlement documents. Repeated suspensions without disclosed commercial progress would be less reassuring.

The second is a binding agreement. It should state what AVZ is transferring or retaining, what it will receive, who must approve the transaction and when funds become payable. Language about continuing discussions or alignment between parties is useful, but it does not establish recoverable value.

The third is clarity around net proceeds. Shareholders need to see the claims of CATH, other funders, Dathcom participants, advisers and legal counterparties reflected in a transparent waterfall. Without that information, even an impressive headline settlement cannot be translated into a per-share outcome.

The fourth is payment or enforceability. Cash received is stronger evidence than conditional consideration, and an enforceable award is stronger than an interim ruling. If value is deferred, investors should examine the creditworthiness of the payer and the conditions attached to later instalments.

The fifth is a capital-management decision. AVZ could distribute proceeds, retain cash to pursue remaining claims, acquire another project or seek a new listing. Each path carries a different risk profile. Shareholder value is not crystallised until the board explains how recovered capital will be used.

Finally, investors should watch the appeal concerning exploration permit PR4029, the status of rival operations at Manono and the ASIC litigation. These may not determine AVZ’s entire valuation individually, but together they affect negotiating leverage, costs and the credibility of any return-to-market plan.

Key takeaways

• AVZ Minerals was removed from the ASX official list in May 2024 and does not have a current exchange-traded share price.
• The historical A$0.78 closing price should not be used as a present valuation or market-capitalisation input.
• Manono’s published resource scale supports the strategic importance of AVZ’s claims, but geology does not overcome contested tenure or missing project control.
• AVZ has achieved favourable ICC outcomes, including a decision supporting its Dathomir share acquisition, but legal success has not yet produced a completed shareholder recovery.
• The ICSID arbitration is suspended for a further three months, and the tribunal has lifted its previous interim orders.
• A negotiated transaction involving KoBold or another party could offer a more practical route than prolonged litigation, but no binding completed sale has been announced.
• CATH funding keeps AVZ’s strategy alive, although secured obligations and transaction rights could reduce the amount ultimately attributable to ordinary shareholders.
• The ASIC case is a separate material risk involving allegations that AVZ and two directors deny.
• The decisive evidence will be a binding settlement, transparent net-proceeds waterfall and receipt of enforceable value, not another preliminary legal or diplomatic update.

For existing shareholders, AVZ remains a recovery situation with potentially valuable underlying claims but unusually high legal, political, financing and execution risk. For outside investors, it is not presently an ASX-traded opportunity. The next chapter will be determined by documents, enforceability and cash, rather than lithium-market momentum alone.