Honestly, I am quite over the premise of lost continuity and/or disruptive actions being threats to the current and ongoing negotiations for the disposal of the Company's 80% share of Morila SA & the Corporate Process as the sole reason to keep any/all of the incumbent Board.
Unless there is something I have missed or some other outstanding reason to keep any of the current Board that would negate their performance as overseers of:
(a) The $222,000,000 write down of the Morila Asset/s
(b) The $272,929,914 after tax for the period 1st January 2022 - 31st December 2022
(c) The $19,507,355 loss on investment after the sale of Leo Lithium Shares
** the sale of the Leo Lithium Shares was prior to them fully understanding what the capital position the Company was in!!
It is a blur on shareholders intelligence if you are suggesting you want Fraser to remain as it would be inducive to and in the interest of preserving money!
This so called "continuity lost" premise is suggestive of there will be:
~ no professional handover between any/all outgoing directors and the any incoming directors and/or;
~ Gilbert & Tobin not briefing incoming directors if there is a complete change of the Board and/or:
~ Treadstone Resource Partners not briefing incoming directors if there is a complete change of the Board and/or;
~ any purported Corporate Transaction for Firefinch Limited assets, lacks any robustness that any bidders would withdraw if there is a complete or partial change of the Board?
** they are bidding for the assets of Firefinch Limited and to my knowledge that wouldn't include the Board of Directors?**
~ as for keeping any of the Board for continuity sake as they will have clarity of the situation of Morila? It is logical to suggest that they will have information on the preferred bidder of the 80% Share of Morila SA, but that IMO is where any clarity of Morila SA ceases. It was very clear and was repeated numerous times at the AGM, that the Company have no knowledge or information on what is happening at Morila
** with the recent "Mali Government" letter, it is clear that this saga is far from finished, if we have no ""parent guarantee" for any outstanding liabilities as clearly stated at the AGM why are we entering into "good faith" discussions?
** is the "no parent guarantee" being back tested now with the Mali Government throwing their weight around?
What I think of the last 12 months?
It sure has been jam packed with achievements, highlighted by {insert crickets chirping sounds}
from your subsequent post:
re: "
But anyways I think people forget it was Cowden and Anderson that ran the show that lead to us being where we are. Fraser was peripheral to the disastrous decision making."
~ it is hard to keep up with you at times, as I am sure you have been vocal in posting the role of the Board of Directors, subliminally trying to detract from Fraser's performance by highlighting Cowden & Anderson -- we really do need a "shakes my head" emoticon!
AND WHY ARE WE HERE?
In essence, none of this would have happened if only the Company had of announced the closing date for Nominations of Directors ahead of the Annual General meeting as per ASX Listing Rules. Given that it wasn't, a Nomination was still lodged with the Company as under their own policies they could have accepted the nomination not meeting the required 35 days notice if agreed to by the board, but what we got was disclosure of:
~ a technical problem causing the email which had the nomination attached was sent to the junk file of Michael Weir at Citadel - Magnus, that includes the cc copy sent to info@firefinch as email were being redirected.
~ and when Michael Weir did eventually reply to my email, it was condescending at a bare minimum and blame shifting as the cherry on top!
Quote:
"My sincere apologies for the delay in responding to your email. For some reason your email ended in my junk folder, which I can't explain as I receive regular emails directed to the info@firefinch email, it may have been caused by an incorrect email address for myself.
The ASX listing rules and constitution have not changed (requiring new director nominations no later than 35 business days prior to the AGM). As Firefinch has a December 31 balance date, we are required to hold the AGM by the 31 May and therefor could have received Director nominations anytime up until early April. However, it is also true that the Company should remind shareholders of this deadline.
** This paragraph by itself is somewhat confusing (per sé) as on one hand the Company have utilised the ASX Listing Rules and the Company's Constitution as a means to suit themselves, and they cannot be argued. It is all there in black and white, the requirements and minimum timelines as prescribed in the listing rules and constitution. What makes it confusing, is it is the very listing rules they used to justify non acceptance of the Nomination, they in fact were in breach by failing to announce the closing date for Nominations.
** Listing Rule 3.13 An entity must tell the ASX the following information;
3.13.1 If the entity, is not an externally managed trust and directors may be elected at a meeting of security holders, the entity must tell ASX the date of the meetings and the closing date for the receipt of nominations from persons wishing to be considered for election as a director, at least 5 business days before the closing date for receipt of such nominations.
** I'll just drop this little snippet from the Company's recent Corporate Governance statement; maybe a different shade of colour needed but not green .. ..
In this case there was an honest oversight by the Company in not reminding shareholders of this timeline. While this should not have prevented anyone from lodging a nomination, I would nevertheless like to apologise for the unintentional oversight.
~ then Fraser in his reply to this question of why they didn't accept the Nomination, from the AGM "I make no apologies" for the email being sent to the junk folder.
~ see above snippet !!! Have to love the English language and how the dynamics of a word can change, Oversight is probably one of "them" words the board would wish hadn't been invented (lol) particularly if it is preceded with "lack of", "no", and now "unintentional".
This 249D has transpired basically because the Requisitioning Members have lost all trust in the current Board of Directors, simple really.
Not so simple though
~ all through this process post the trading halt/suspension, and although the Company have said they are working in the best interests of all shareholders but to date, failed to demonstrate exactly where any consideration has been given to the small, mum & dad retail investors preferences.
Lowe said himself at the AGM there are two group of shareholders; those that are willing to wait for the shares to come out of escrow and those that want liquidity now - at that is why we started the corporate process to get liquidity now because they are frustrated with having capital tied up.
~ so again, I ask, why did the Company make the decision to proceed with the corporate process rather than wait and return LLL shares back to shareholders, bearing in mind the money you are wanting to preserve is being depleted by Corporate negotiators and lawyers.
~ working in the best interest of those that are wanting the return of LLL shares will come only if those very same shareholders vote against any Corporate offer, the plan B.
** called blowing smoke up ................... after giving shareholders ground breaking news that they have started the process for the remaining capital to be returned by entering into conversations with the ATO, allegedly to minimise any delay, pffffffft.
The Shareholder Action Group, has taken note of social media posts (HotCopper, Twitter, LinkedIn, and emails received etc) and discussed the pros of a strategy that would include recommending voting for one of the current Board of Directors. This only came about after the "mutually agreed" termination of Lowe, and with it went the continuity that shareholders were wanting, so rather than making statements of some sort of madness and/or being ridiculous that the shareholder group are in anyway not seeking continuity try asking the Company why Lowe was terminated?
~ and while you are asking them that, maybe also ask about what disruptive effect has the termination of Lowe and the recent announcement had on the Corporate Transaction? One of directors main concerns and that of others commenting that this action was/could be disruptive, I think they have nailed it all by themselves .. .. ..
~ remembering it was noted that Lowe wasn't part of any actions/proposed resolutions of the 249D, in fact I refer you to the information of the FFX shareholder action group website FAQ's where is is very clear that it was the RM's plan to keep Lowe.
Finally, yes the Shareholder Action Group did discuss keeping Fraser as per social media comments and contact received from larger shareholders that were suggesting keeping "continuity", we discussed this at great lengths including the opportunity to possibly gain votes.. .. ..
Then it comes back to why we took this action, what was the initial plan:
It was an exercise in unity, by a lot of shareholders - some large but mostly small mum and dad, retail investors.
It was also, a we will not be taken for granted, we will not be ignored and we will not be treated with the attitude displayed at the Annual General Meeting!
From little things big things grow, could never be a more truer statement!
I would also like to draw your attention to the statement from one of the proposed directors, also available on the FFX Shareholder Action Group website,
The final outcome for not recommending a strategic vote to keep one of the current directors, all comes back to the reason we are here.
~ It was a lack of trust that shareholders would receive a satisfactory outcome with the current board in place.
~ It was the disdain displayed by the current board towards, namely shareholders that initiated and proposed the Nomination of a Director, that was unfortunately missed due to technical problems.
~ It was the disdain towards shareholders and displaying an air of arrogance, that the larger shareholders and institutions were more important than the retail shareholders.
~ It was the inability to provide any sort of plausible reasoning to the sale of the LLL shares but managed to try some sort of justification by adding, we have already returned $591M back to shareholders.
~ It was their unified belief, they, the Board and Management have always availed themselves to listen, discuss and communicate with shareholders.
~ It was the performance of the board as overseers of the executive management that was unsatisfactory, regardless of all the "green squares" of achievement in the Corporate Governance statement.
Now some commentators want to keep one, two or all of the current board of directors, incite to disregard this reckless and disruptive action by a bunch of ?~ what ever way you may want to describe the FFX Shareholder Action Group matters little.
What we have achieved is beyond belief, the support has been beyond belief, the level of trust exhibited by strangers and the faith they have bestowed on the RM's is beyond belief. And the end goal is unchanged, how we get there is unchanged.
Will the Shareholders Action Group be successful in its campaign to have the Proposed Directors elected and the incumbent Directors removed?
~ I don't know
Or will there be 1 or 2 Proposed Directors elected and 1 or 2 incumbent Directors removed?
~ I don't know
Would we have gained a lot of votes by recommending keeping Fraser?
~ maybe / more than likely depending on how trustworthy those large shareholders would have been?
What I do know is, there is no way that we were going to alter our moral compasses to even suggest being a party to him maintaining his position.
The
pros and cons of his and the rest of the board's performance has been debated over and over.
If you are voting following any of the recommendations made the incumbent board, you are vindicating them for their performance as the overseers of the decimation of shareholders assets and wealth, a lack of ROI, lost opportunities with capital being locked in suspension and the poor management of the Leo Lithium investment, to name a few.
Some people make things happen, some people watch things happen and the rest say "what just happened,"
Every single one of the of the supporters / participants of the FFX Shareholders Action Group are in the group of making things happen.
If we win or not, .. .. .. combined & together we all had a crack!
Out of this whole saga, NOW,
NOW this {expletive deleted} Board of Firefinch want to talk to us mere retail shareholders!
And you want me to vote for one of them .. .. .. ..
cheers
