Extract from ASIC
Gold Processing Equipment Pty Ltd
ACN 641 779 777
Director: Michael Haney
Secretary: Michael Haney
Previous Director: Brett Leslie Lewis
Address: Hillarys WA 6025
Shareholders:
1. Ms Chloe Ribarich, 33.33%, ORD Shares, Non Beneficially Held
2. Michael Hanley, 33.34%, ORD Shares, Beneficially Held
3. Michael Hanley, 33.33%, ORD Shares, Non Beneficially Held
All shareholder addresses consistent with registered business address.
GPE recorded as having 4,166,667 shares (valued at around $150k) in Archean Resources Pty Ltd
Extract from ASIC
Archean Resources Pty Ltd (around since 2018)
ACN 629 369 859
Directors: Jacob Spencer Doutch, Melanie Jane King, John Hugh Lester
Secretary: Nainesh Pranjivan Bhatt
Previous Director: Madhukar Bhalla
Previous Secretaries: Madhukar Bhalla, Jeffrey Shinpei Nurse, Madhukar Bhalla
Address: Landsdale WA 6065 (same address as Classic Minerals)
Shareholders:
1. Craig Martin, 0.41%, Class A Shares, Beneficially Held
2. Gold Processing Equipment Pty Ltd, 25.67%, Class A Shares, Beneficially Held
3. Whead Pty Ltd, 61.62%, Class A Shares, Beneficially Held
4. Jonathan Doutch, 2.05%, Class A Shares, Beneficially Held
5. Still Capital Pty Ltd, 2.05%, Class A Shares, Beneficially Held
6. Laura Louise Margaret Mckay, 2.05%, Class A Shares, Beneficially Held
7. Elizabeth Frances Whitehead, 2.05%, Class A Shares, Beneficially Held
8. Steven Martin Joseph Whitehead, 2.05%, Class A Shares, Beneficially Held
9. Lisa-Ann Mary Dixson, 2.05%, Class A Shares, Beneficially Held
10. Madhukar Bhalla, 120 ORD Shares, Beneficially Held (same address as the contact address for GPE)
Without prejudicing the outcome of any subsequent investigation based on available/determined evidence and facts, it will be important for the Board to more adequately respond to the ASX enquiry in relation to point 14, including advising the for their response to this question (which was not provided).
Section 228 (7) of the Corporations Act states that "an entity is a related party of a public company if the entity acts in concert with a related party of the public company on the understanding that the related party will receive a financial benefit if the public company gives the entity a financial benefit."
It could be argued that if CLZ were unable to execute its business mission and objectives without the Gekko, and GPE were the sole (or at least majority) supplier of that equipment, then there my be a case for it to be considered a related entity as defined in Sect 228 (7) of the Corporations Act. Were that to be the case Ms Ribarich, as a substantial shareholder in GPE, could be considered a related party under Sect 228 (7) of the Corporations Act. This assessment may be further considered based on any potential conflict of interest between Ms Ribarich's interests in the two related entities, and any familial relationships that may exist.
A further question that should be carefully considered is Ms Ribirach's suitability for the defined role or engagement (qualifications, experience), whether the recruitment process was consistent with CLZ's human resources processes, and whether those processes were consistent with good industry practice (diversity and inclusion, good industry practice).
I will be interested to see how this unfolds but am managing expectations.
Expand
(20min delay)