Ann: Board Changes and AGM Update, page-9

I’m trying to make sense of this change.

Two of the ‘current’ directors only joined the board because the previous management and board all decided to leave and they were the only ones willing to put in their expertise to get the best return for all shareholders, notwithstanding they themselves had large parcels.

So they were there as defacto directors who have been trying their best to realise some value out of a disaster. The assets have all almost been sold and the ongoing commitments finalised. So they have done a great job in getting MHM this far.

They had identified KIN Mining as a potential partner and attempted to engage in a joining of the entities. This did not proceed and so their next opportunity is Alliance Mining, a private company.

The schedule they set out has specific actions estimated to be achieved within very reasonable timeframes. There has clearly been a great deal of work and negotiation involved by both parties.
I assume the general expectation from shareholders would be the same as me in that our board would stay on to use their expertise - as claimed in the original notice.

So the issue at this moment is why have they resigned and/or given notice now?

The negative view is that everything has fallen apart quickly. But, if so, they would have to give notification to ASX and the shareholders that the announcement has changed. This has not happened.

The positive view is that Alliance management and directors see themselves as using the MHM shell as ready access for the necessary large capital raising and have moved quickly to replace the MHM directors, as they expect the agreements to be completed relatively expeditiously. They have the long term day to day involvement with Alliance and have spent a lot of cash getting to this point and must see themselves as the best option for continuing to develop the future efficiently. They have access to MHM cash and company structure and it gives them a speedier and cheaper entry into the CR market than starting a new IPO. The MHM directors all have other things to do and probably wanted to (agreed to?) move quickly back to their former lives. And that is the issue to me. Is that what has happened?

To me, the swift departure of the MHM directors seems to create more uncertainty as there is no explanation and getting any specific response from MHM seems to have hit a brick wall. Deflecting to the AGM gives both parties some time to sort things out for a positive (hopefully) announcement at that time.

I will most certainly be at the AGM. It appears I will need another 3-4 months patience but it would be nice if they could provide some positive updates the minute anything progresses - as we’d all like to see just a spot of light at the end of this very long, deep, dark tunnel.

Let’s hope, out of this, there is good news. But let’s not call for a bailout yet - just because it’s so frustrating - until we actually know what’s happening.


Joseph, is there anything you can share yet?