Yes, the way that it has been explained to me is that they will take an interest in the ML.
Of course, it would commercially impractical to amend an SML for every change in the shareholder structure. Now that would be ludicrous.
I dare say that there would be companies that hold MLs but also have non direct mining operation revenue streams. To my knowledge, the legislation only seeks a 16% interest in the mining operations, therefore to me it stands to reason why that interest would be in the ML rather than the legal entity that holds the licence.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)