I have liked your posts over the long BGS/MLL/FFX journey, particularly the cynical views relating to the Board of Directors and management inclusive of past and current, and we sure have had some "characters" running this Company, BUT!, you have lost the plot;
Your opinions/interpretation of the timelines and correspondence with the ATO is not quite the same as how I am reading this latest "Shareholder Update" nor aligns with previous correspondence I have had with the Company.
re: "
This issue is with management stating they raised a class ruling with ATO on the distribution of LLL sharesprior to tranche 1."This is correct and was very clearly stated in the announcement;
Initial Ruling Request:- Firefinch submitted a Class Ruling application to the ATO in October 2024, asking for a ruling on the appropriate treatment of the Company distributing its residual cash balance and making an in-specie distribution of the LLL shares prior to LLL making its Tranche 1 distribution,
- the Initial Ruling Request was allocated a review team in November 2024,
- Firefinch attended a call with the ATO in December to explain the Initial Ruling Request and respond to initial queries, which also included providing copies of the Company's historic financial statements; the Company sought regular updates from the ATO regarding the status,
- Firefinch was advised in January that the ATO would not be in a position to provide a determination prior to LLL issuing the Tranche 1 payment.
- 19 February 2025, LLL announced that the ATO Class Ruling was published, which is only a formal acknowledgement of what LLL share holders were advised on the treatment of the Capital Returns.
re: "
It now reads like they were never interested in distributing the LLL sharesprior to tranche 1 at all."re: "
The ATO could have easily ruled on what tax implications of handing back LLL shares would have been prior to tranche 1."You have possibly misread the announcement because it is clear that it was not the doing of the Company not to return the LLL shares and residual cash balances but the ATO's inability to make a ruling prior to the LLL Tranche 1 transaction.
re: "
The point is that Management appear to have mislead shareholders with their statements not being truthful. I.e. They were never looking to give the LLL shares back prior to tranche 1, or now even tranche 2, but they kept sprouting misinformation for 6 months..."
This is your opinion and one which I do not subscribe to, the Company have always maintained they are striving to close this out and wind it up, what benefit (other than getting directors fees) is there to purposely drag this out? The Australian Tax Office doesn't dance to any Company nor individuals drum beat, which is evident in the amount of time it takes to decide it can't make a decision in a 3 1/2 month time frame (October - January)
** No this isn't a blind defence of the current board of Firefinch, their communications have been deplorable since making the decision to walk away from Morila, and even more so since being delisted from the ASX.
** I have had (delayed) success with correspondence with the Company through out, mainly through Michael Weir as his company still monitors the Firefinch emails.
re: "
What exactly is management doing where the most important process the company is undertaking isn't the priority and they didn't reach out to the tax advisors after even receiving the confirmed ATO class ruling on teh 19th of Feb for 3 months?"
No offence meant, but it appears you are interpreting the submission of the second Class Ruling to the ATO in May as the first instance of addressing or reaching out to the tax advisors?
Second Ruling Request- Firefinch submitted a second Class Ruling application with the ATO in May 2025
Which was necessary as the tax analysis previously prepared (for the Initial Ruling) fundamentally altered after receiving the Tranche 1 distribution and the ATO release of the LLL Class Ruling.
- financial modelling was prepared by Firefinch and its external tax advisorprior to submitting the Second Ruling Request which took in various distribution scenarios and the implication to both Firefinch and its shareholders.
- with a focus on delivering as much value as possible to all shareholders
Distribution of Firefinch Cash to Shareholders:Firefinch will arrange for payment of most of Tranche 1 LLL distribution,
will this be made up of 2 payments as per the LLL Tranche 1 payment
- historical cash balance $19,120,000 = /1,181,243,221 = $0.016 per FFX share held as a Return of Capital
- Tranche 1 payment $36,280,000 (less $1,280,000 kept to close all this out) = $35,000,000 / 1,181,243,221 = $0.029 per FFX shares held, with the treatment to be advised?
In-specie Distribution of LLL SharesIn determining its course of action, the Firefinch Board has been guided by the principle of retuning as much value as possible to shareholders together with as little adverse tax implications as possible for both the Company and shareholders.
Based on professional advice the Board determined the most effective way to deliver the objectives in the best interest of shareholders was retaining the LLL shares and pay shareholder dividends form the LLL distributions.
- the board was probably a little too proud to concede that these type of strategies were also topics (among other things) of a combined shareholder group email.
Or conversely, would your preference have been, just issue the LLL shares and deal with whatever the ATO decides how they will be treated?
~ I like the idea of being double taxed (NOT!!!!!!!!)
Matt MitchellSome back ground information, and after reading this you might consider having your disrespectful and character assignation comments across multiple posts moderated.
Matt was approached by myself and
@franky1 to consider being nominated as a Director of Firefinch, solely to be a true independent director (as per the definitions of the Company's Board Charter) and being a known shareholder representative monitoring and contributing to the activities of the Company as it completes the steps to return the best possible outcome for all shareholders.
Matt was hesitant but after some thought he agreed to have a crack, if it was only to just be an observer that the process/es were adhering to the regulations of the Corporations Act and voice the wishes and concerns of shareholders.
The transparency in the recent announcement (versus previous) could be a factor of Matt simply sitting at the table?
Matt agreed to take on this responsibility for no remuneration (Directors fees) and in doing so, took on personal liability risks at his own cost, also at his own cost travel and sundries to attend meetings without factoring in any loss of billable hours to his own work.
I am not sure if Matt reads any of the content of posts on HotCopper, because if he does I would not be surprised if there was another Company announcement on the web, advising of his resignation (FWIW Matt isn't likely to do that, he took on the role to see it though) because I'd be damned if I would want to represent shareholders with the attitude you are displaying against someone you have no idea about.
A couple of last passing thoughts,
- contrary to your derogative comments, Matt hasn't (to my knowledge) any aspirations of gaining street cred, nor joining the Perth mafia and the wild west of the ASX
Furthermore, what were your expectations of Matt, as;
- at a table of 4, Matt only has the one vote .. .. .. .. just saying.
Finally, I am more than happy with the judgement of franky1 and myself when selecting Matt to represent shareholders and I am also confident that his business and personal core values have remained intact regardless of your and
@tara007 opinions.
FYI
re: "
We have no idea how much they are spending. I haven't seen a quarterly for over a year."
There is no specific mandate under the Corporations Act for unlisted disclosing public companies to release quarterly reports, they are however, - required to release half yearly financial reports, excludes having to send reports to members
- required to release annual, audited financial reports and a copy sent to members
Which does lead me into why isn't there the same amount of frustration and contacting the Company to enquire why they haven't submitted the 1/2 yearly report which also lends into they can't submit the annual audited accounts until the do, nor can they hold the AGM.
- attendance at the AGM would enable you to voice your concerns / question the delays and "untruthful content of announcements" and table your questions to Matt at the meeting as well?
- both the 1/2 yearly, annual reports and the AGM as extremely late .. .. ..
