Perhaps I can be more specific to clarify your concerns and address the direct claim you made that Ken Brinsden (Inferred by your use of the initials KB) disposed of shares when he should not have, and that he will be asked tomorrow (without providing evidence he is even required to be present at the hearing) if there is any upcoming event that could affect the shareprice negatively.
Now I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that KB held securities or disposed of any ordinary shares that had not been issued in full compliance. As previously stated the current matter before the courts is regarding the lack of cleansing notice for the 2m shares issued upon conversion of options by Sally-Anne Layman and subsequent sale.
I believe you are correct that a cleansing notice states the company has been in compliance with various elements of the Corporations Act. It is however complicated.
KB would have required the written approval of the Chairman of PLS (or Chair of the Audit and Risk Committee) to dispose of those securities. It is also worth noting that ordinarily the required, but lacking, cleansing notice would have covered a period prior to his recent sales - the cleansing notice if issued on time would have covered the period up to the 25th June 2021. KB trades occurred June 28th - June 30th.
At the time of your post PLS had subsequently issued a cleansing notice to confirm it has been in compliance with the relevant legislation up to the date of the belated notice on the 28th July 2021. Therefore what you are suggesting is that PLS have lied this week in their filing if you maintain KB should not have sold his shares.
It seems your allegations moved past the reason for the current Supreme Court (being the lack cleansing notice for the 2m shares issued to a different Director), and onto a direct accusation that KB sold shares during a period he was aware of non public material information. This is a very serious claim. Firstly there are indeed situations where it is acceptable for Directors / Restricted Persons to trade under the circumstances you allege. I note that there were three Directors that sold on market during the final days of FY21.
It is entirely possible, and could be deduced by the timing that a non-discretionary plan may have been put in place by all 3 Directors that traded at the end of financial year and as such would not necessarily be impacted by subsequent knowledge of material changes. There are also some other legal exemptions including one in particular that could potentially apply to KB. There is mention of personal financial restructuring including ATO commitments. It is possible that KB had no other means of satisfying his ATO obligation without the sale. I have provided a link at the bottom to the PLS Securities Trading Policy.
You have speculated in particular that if the POSCO deal has collapsed KB is in deep trouble. This suggestion is worth discussion.
I would note that in recent months, PLS has given regular market updates as to the status of the POSCO transaction. This includes prior to the sale by KB at the end of June and as recently as yesterday's quarterly report where they stated both parties remain committed to bringing the transaction to a close. Therefore I would put it to you that if the deal has collapsed, PLS and it's Directors would be facing very serious consequences regarding continuous disclosure.
It would seem that what you have claimed is extremely serious in it's nature and certain statements appear written as fact, yet you have provided no substantiation.
I'll avoid your claim about lies re responsibility for downward pressure on Spodumene pricing because it has been rehashed many times and I don't think you and I will ever agree on what AJM received for product in 2020. In the past I would usually provide the comparison you asked about in a previous post on this thread, but I don't think it is worthwhile getting back into that sort of disagreement.
I would appreciate you substantiating the claim that the plant that cannot deliver spod for high performance LiOH is not the former AJM plant - Ngungaju. Can you please provide evidence that PLS Pilgan plant cannot provide Spodumene Concentrate for this purpose, and perhaps also provide some thoughts on what offtakers like Ganfeng have been doing with the large volume of shipments they have been taking.
Apologies for the lengthy post, but there were some strong allegations of illegal activities that I believe warranted a comprehensive rebuttal.
(20min delay)