This was no surprise as the Company had indicated in the announcement (MoU signed for the sale of remaining 40% of project) that they were engaging with the ASX to discuss the necessary steps to lift the suspension.
~ from the announcement; "the Company will need to meet its statutory reporting requirements including lodging its 2023 financial accounts and holding an Annual General Meeting" "the Company will discuss with the ASX the necessary next steps to lift the suspension of trading in shares of the Company." "the lifting of the suspension is at the discretion of the ASX"
For those that may have forgotten, 3 October 2023 the Company applied for an extension to their voluntary suspension, the ASX wanted information that the Company wasn't in a position to disclose, quoting the exception to listing rule 3.1A as the negotiations were incomplete. The ASX then placed the Company in suspension (listing rule 17.3) for failing to respond to queries adequately.
This aware letter is dated 12 October 2023, and as being in discussion with the ASX it is obviously another step in progressing to being re-listed as all the the statutory disclosure requirements have been completed exception being the AGM.
Strategic management; information from the Notice of Annual General Meeting; "the Company intends to seek other opportunities to deliver growth to shareholders via exploration for, and extraction of, lithium and critical minerals" "the Board plans to retain a cash balance currently estimated to be between $A50 million to A$70 million to deliver on this strategy" "this money will be drawn from Australia cash reserves and not from the proceeds of the Transaction"
Note: "Any transaction that the Company enters into when implementing this strategy is likely to require the Company to re-comply with Chapters 1 & 2 of the Listing Rules" ~ as per conversation with Simon Hay, major institutions were not united with some wanting all back, the majority didn't want any back and re-invest it! ~ contrary to what some are suggesting, the Company has no asset/s to trade with, and it is why Simon recommended the Board return some of their money back, re tranche 1 payment to be distributed to shareholders.
I think you have nailed it, I also believe there is already something on the books. ~ why would Amber Banfield offer herself for re-election if there was nothing of note to warrant staying? ++ before the crowd come barging in suggesting that it is for the gravy train, snouts in the trough BS, it is obvious that she doesn't rely on her LLL director fees for a living! FYI - I voted for her re-appointment because of her commitment and supporting the Company by investing 2.21 times her gross or 3.16 times her annual salary (calculated to June 2025)
~ why is the Company so dogmatic about keeping cash $50 - $70 million for a "project" ~ as much as I am against the Retention Awards defined in the meeting notes, is the attractiveness to entice the executives to remain thus keeping the proven skill sets intact? ~ I also believe they already have or are in the process of securing a potential project, like you a gut feel
(20min delay)