This post is in my opinion, I ask questions and make no accusations, I provide links to the information provided.Hi@MuayNot enough, I agree but it sets the stage for possibility of class action now that the 2 cases are settled in the affirmative.In addition to the cases that have just been settled, I think that there are other legitimate questions that arise now as well, they may fall into the grey zone, I am unsure.I refer to the BFS presented on 20 November 2018 where they say onhttps://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/AUZ/02049946.pdfpage 3(“Our acquisition timing proved spot-on and now, two years later, we believe theProject is well on track to move to the next stage in project funding negotiations.)Its not what they say in this entire BFS document that concerns me, Its what they DO NOT SAY.How could AUZ get to do a BFS and announce funding negotiations when the most important basics have NOT been completed. Its is misleading IMO, especially when the announcements and reports are short and without much detail, furthermore there is no disclosure of the critical matters like (what is incomplete or still needs doing for approval)- They do not have enough tenement/ (Available land) to place the production plant on (To Date). This would/ could affect the BFS costings substantially.- They do not have an environmental impact study completed and approved(To Date). This would/ could affect the costings substantially.- These abovementioned matters are unresolved to date, 13/05/2023 there will be NO MINE until resolved. To my best knowledge.For everyone's knowledge.I understand that a mining company may not build a plant on top of valuable resources, In order to determine this there is a process called sterilization that must take place on a proposed permanent infrastructure site.This is done by selecting a site and then drilling it to determine that no valuable metals are being built on, thus preventing access to said metals.It appears that this has not been done becausethe company has not even got an approved site to build on.Furthermore they are in the process of applying for additional resources nearby to gain access to the necessary land required for the plant and infrastructure, as per MH announcement.What if the requested tenements are refused, remember Sconi has proximity to military land and may be restricted by this.When were these applications for extra resource made ?The process for development is basicallyConceptual StudyPre feasibility StudyDefinitive Feasibility StudyBankable Feasibility StudyFinal Investment DecisionSo for AUZ to have completed a BFS and to be ready for funding (Final Investment decision) without a proposed sterilized site for the plant and to still not have an Environmental Impact study completed and approved is disturbing as an investor expecting the development process to be followed diligently.In a BFS the nuts and bolts of a project are supposed to have been completed, all approvals in place and the project is ready for funding and final investment decision, IMO.There is something very wrong in the logic at Australian Mines, The critical approvals are still not in place to proceed to mining and only when Michael Holmes took over were these disclosures made to this effect. Michael Holmes has been upfront with shareholders to my best knowledge.Question to all. Does anyone know of any public disclosure/ announcement or information relating to there being NO approved plant site and NO approved Environmental Impact Study between the dates of this BFS and Michael Holmes appointment. I checked but found nothing.The absence of this disclosure looks bad from an investors perspective. We had reason to believe that due process was followed and were not told the contrary. In My Opinion.Have we shareholders been misled between 20/11/2018 and 05/09/2022 is a legitimate question that springs to mind.Continuous disclosure involves what is said, but it also covers what is not said and should have been disclosed for proper assessment by shareholders and investors.In essence Australian Mines should be at Pre Feasibility stages of engagement because those are the studies still being done In My Opinion.As a previous shareholder in AUZ I feel that there are legitimate questions being asked and answers due.I ask questions and make no accusations.REDHere is the ASIC Media Release on Ben Bell, I have highlighted the salient points.ASIC media releases are point-in-time statements. Please note the date of issue and use the internal search function on the site to check for other media releases on the same or related matters.
23-125MR Former Australian Mines managing director fined $70,000, disqualified for two years
Former Australian Mines managing director, Benjamin Bell, has been fined $70,000 and disqualified from managing corporations for two years for breaching his duties as a director.
The Federal Court decision comes after Mr Bell admitted he failed to act with the degree of care and diligence required of a director when he gave presentations at investment conferences in Hong Kong and London and:
- falsely claimed that Australian Mines had secured funding to construct a plant for its main asset, the Sconi Project and
- misleadingly stated that the value of the offtake agreement with SK Innovation, based on expected production from the Sconi Project, was $5 billion despite the agreement including a potential buyers discount of 15%.
Mr Bell admitted that by making these comments he caused Australian Mines to breach its continuous disclosure obligations.
ASIC Deputy Chair Sarah Court said, ‘As managing director of Australian Mines, Mr Bell had an obligation to provide accurate information about his company’s dealings and make sure it complied with continuous disclosure laws.
‘Continuous disclosure obligations are fundamental principles of fairness and transparency that sit at the heart of Australia’s financial markets. When directors fail in their obligations, they undermine these core principles and ASIC will look to take action,’ concluded Ms Court.
The Federal Court further found, by stating that the value of the Australian Mines’ Offtake Agreement was $5 billion, Mr Bell admitted that:
- he ought reasonably to have known that following inquiries by the ASX, Australian Mines had recently retracted the same valuation as it was not consistent with the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code);
- he failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that repeating the valuation on two occasions would not result in further inquiries by the ASX and Australian Mines having to again issue a retraction as the valuation was not consistent with the JORC Code; and
- he failed to cause Australian Mines to correct the representation or to inform the ASX of other information required by the JORC Code.
In handing down the penalty, Justice Colvin found Mr Bell’s contraventions to be serious and noted that capital markets are dependent on accurate information being available.
Benjamin Bell has been ordered to contribute to ASIC’s legal costs in the amount of $60,000. Mr Bell’s disqualification commences on 12 May 2023.
(20min delay)