Whoa... that's like a one, two punch & a lightweight boxer on the canvas down for the count! (metaphorically speaking).
If you go back to a poster called Eagle89 now what appears susp'd, the poster put up a concise 6 page document with supporting evidence, dates, times with referenced documents from the announcements on the company website outlining in detail some major issues in what appears serious breaches of the Act, the Aust. stock exchange listing rules, and the companies very own corporate governance documentation. This means there is a high probability the company most likely had (paid?) representation on this platform to remove posters information (that was in the public domain) from the eyes of shareholders. Coincidentally, all this 'cancelling' occurred on or around the time of the 249F Corporate action last year.
The narrative the Board used to steer shareholder attention away from the serious Corp. Governance issues, was there was a conflict of interest with the Drilling Contract with then MD (who resigned & shareholders had to WAIT, for 7 days before an official announcement was made about his termination). I'm sorry, it does not take 7 days to announce the reason for a termination of a key person, why?
With all that is now unfolding, it is abundantly clear the Board fought with tenacity to deliberately control a narrative to attack the then MD's credibility to justify termination. I had always found something troubling with the narrative the Board was peddling & couldn't quite work out what I was overlooking. However, it didn't dawn on me until after the 249F action fell in favour of the current Board all because shareholders had their attention diverted from the real issues & tricked into by being drawn into the vortex of "credibility" with Mr Welker and Mr Williams & Ranger Resources. While a cunning plan, it was also in my view deceptive conduct & potentially fraudulent, here is the why;
In my view this is where the Board's narrative falls apart. If you study the corporate schematic the Board put to shareholders, a structure that was so intricately detailed & precise. It's too precise. Meaning all the company structures, (holdings & ownership) are private entities (unlisted & not in the public domain) therefore, where did this document come from? Because it was primarily used, from what I can tell, to manipulate the minds of shareholders to vote a specific way. It does not make sense that the Board did not know the name of Drilling Company that was performing the exploration work, the contracts between the drilling company the asset they were doing the drilling for, & the Ownership arrangement of the Drilling Company. After all Welker & Co. owned the exploration asset & the drilling company (i suspect to keep costs down by controlling the risk of operational assets, saving mobe & demobe costs, business operational risk mitigation most likely).
There's just no hiding Ranger Resources & who the directors of the Drilling company are at the time of the purchase. Due Diligence would discover all this with basic questions like: what is the exploration company performing the drilling program, who is it owned by etc. etc. It's right in front of you, & the Directors name would show up in a company search. See where I am coming from? These therefore appear to be DD docs. Shareholders can request/demand to cite the Board minutes around the purchase as the Board would need to demonstrate DD was performed to ratify the deal. & Who was the Chairman of the Board at the time of the purchase of the Exploration asset?
The MD of then Medusa Mining was Andrew Teo (a long serving employee & officer of the co.) who was terminated not long after the deal for reasons that were never disclosed by the Board. Therefore, Teo would be the obvious person to ask about the Due Diligence performed by the Board. As i have eluded to many times no Board would ignore DD on a purchase of this nature. Further, as is disclosed in the FY22 report Teo also now has a legal action against the company along with others that continue to pile up under this Board.
From what I can tell, there is clearly a controlled narrative in play, this now includes an "Operational Audit" (yeah right!). As you have stated, it's a smokescreen to buy more time (an of course it just happens to be an internal audit & not an external independent auditor appointed - pffffft!). How many more indicators do shareholders need to see something is amiss?
X64 Price at posting:
57.0¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)