Ann: Ceasing to be a substantial holder from PLL, page-15

That's what I was referring in my post last night...... If you look to the latest Top 20 and compare the total holdings then against the total holdings in the 2 block trades last night.




And think of the potential ramifications here. We know it wouldn't be the first time that Piedmont hasn't been compliant with its ASX disclosure relating to substantial holders notices in the past. But , this move and their previous holdings were in anyway tied in with his Wall Street mates like State Street et al , then this lending out of their position in the absence of some conflict of interest ' guised ' in the NOT taking of a BOD position and becoming all encompassing ' Related Party ' . And I always wondered why Piedmont didn't take up a BOD position with their obvious substantial percentage holding. But by doing so , they would have obviously been bound by the non trading rules set of for Sayona Directors as being disallowed based on conflict of interest grounds.

So then this move had it not occurred and as criminal as it might sound may have even bankrupted Piedmont had they had to cover in the more traditional manner of your average short investor.

Just a supposition , and if even remotely true would be highly unethical.