Hi Mutley, in part I agree that the ASX has discretionary authority and it has set a precedent on how it intends using it, albeit in terms of my earlier posts on this thread I have stated i.) my surprise as to how little WFE has done on the core issues for relisting such as Offtakes and ii.) especially knowing those conditions back in 2018, and accepting those conditions for relisting
But I also wonder whether there are other things at play here as alluded to in this post in another thread and whether there is more to this than meets the eye - Post #:
42551623JB's other playsLets get a timeline - June/July 2018 WFE go into suspension.
VECBut lets look at some of JB's other plays - VEC, issues throughout 2018 and 2019, long suspensions, JB leaves company in early to mid 2019 saying essentially job done, and that stock is in suspension again and has had a number of issues IMO throughout 2019.
4CEThen lets look at 4CE - give JB kudos tried the lithium play but drill bit failed, but then moves to something else, suspensions a plenty since
GLVGLV - similar story, something new etc
CCC to name onePast history - a few stocks like CCC
I am just wondering whether the ASX tightened up given what was happening in his other plays, and going back to my embedded post whether more broadly they were starting to get concerned at the issues in his plays generally and whether there are constant elements in those plays (i.e. like similar foundation SHs in thos eplays and/or who brought the new 'play' to JB's attention). I don't know the answers to that so for avoidance of doubt speculating here as what we know is in the conclusion section of this post only. If that was a factor for the ASX in ensuring enforcement of what they wanted WFE to do - without any relaxing of those requirements - that would be interesting to know.
My own experience in IPOs I have particpated in and/or read, which is really what WFE was seeking IMO to informally do as in effect i.) it was a shell company seeking to move into a new strategy, ii.) SHs were to be given documentation etc etc to base decisions on such as independent expert reports, a guide to NPV and project viability etc and iii.) based on the SH vote the strategy would come into play or not. Some IPOs I have read have not been great on detail but allowed to list because I guess, if I was to have a uniformed view IMO IMO view, maybe the underyling management to those IPOs have been one where the ASX hasn't concerns (or possible concerns) on previous management performance they had in other companies. To reiterate, this is not an IO but a change in business model, but the requirements for listing require a level of documentation similar to what SHs expect in an IPO IMO IMO IMO
ConclusionWe will never know, but the fact is the ASX has been unwavering in its requirements that WFE had to meet those goals, as defined in the 3 December 2018 Ann, and what WFE knew it had to do to get relisting. Why absolute strict enforcement we will never know, but ultimately failure here is the responsibility of WFE as they signed up to the rules, and mis-informing SHs (or giving a view) that relisting is a stones throw away as evidenced by the tweets throughout 2019 is an issue for me as well.
And that is all the ASX has to really say - been it will not use discretion, because it is not using discretion here at all - what it is using is the requirements to listing that it gave WFE in 2018, requirements WFE failed to meet like having Offtakes in place. So legally, I suspect the ASX can say it is not using discretion at all - it is enforcing the rules agreed to with WFE for relisting. I suspect the subsequent fall in the cobalt price did not help WFE at all, and as a result whilst the ASX may have had discretion to soften the requirements it chose not to. Why, well we'll never know.
All IMO IMO IMO
