After yesterday's announcement of an agreement with Credit Suisse over the scandal involving more than 1.5 billion dollars worth of "tuna bonds", the Mozambican government is now focusing on something else, and it's called Privinvest. In other words, Mozambique is going to look for “the entire cost” compensation from the shipbuilder Privinvest in London.

According to the Minister of Economy and Finance, Max Tonela, the agreement reached with Credit Suisse on Sunday only covers the 2013 loan to Proindicus, a Mozambican state-owned company, and was "mutually advantageous".

But why is Mozambique now demanding compensation from the shipbuilder Privinvest? The answer is simple: according to the government in question, Mozambique was the victim of a conspiracy and Privinvest paid bribes to corrupt Mozambican officials and Credit Suisse bankers, exposing the nation to potential liabilities of at least 2 billion dollars.

Meanwhile, at yesterday's press conference in Maputo, Max Tonela refused to reveal the amount of compensation that Mozambique is now demanding from shipbuilder Privinvest.

This is expected to be another "battle" with an unpredictable end, since Privinvest denies the accusations made by the Mozambican government and says it has fulfilled its contractual obligations and that any payments made were investments, consultancy payments, legitimate remunerations or contributions to political campaigns - they denied any irregularity.

Information published by Reuters reports that Sunday's agreement, reached a day before the start of the trial in London, led several lawyers representing Mozambique, Credit Suisse, Privinvest, three former Credit Suisse bankers, creditors and others to meet in the High Court to establish how the trial should now proceed.

Judge Robin Knowles also said, quoted by Reuters, that it was imperative to ensure that the three-month trial of a "complicated and intertwined multi-party case" was fair to all parties and postponed the opening of the trial until at least October 16.

Privinvest's Duncan Matthews told the court that the settlement created a "significant shift" in the burden on his clients and that they should be given time to decide which claims and cross-claims remained on the table.