FIREFINCH LIMITED (ASX:FFX) - Ann: Government of Mali - Update, page-295 - HotCopper | ASX Share Prices, Stock Market & Share Trading Forum

Originally posted by fooca: ↑

Ganfeng has taken a majority 55% over Leo 45% of the joint venture company (MLBV) which had equal representation; both in members and voting rights on the Board, this has changed with Ganfeng being issued more shares in MLBV with their extra %age.

This flows down to the structure of the Board of Lithium du Mali SA, which as per the shareholder deed (now defunct?) had an equal number of directors and the structure must ensure proportional representation from each MLBV shareholder .. ..
~ add into this, the Malian Government 10% free carried position and the entitlements that come with it including their representation to the Board of LMSA.
~ I agree with your concerns of being out voted at the MLBV level (55% - 45%), but as @WoodySpoon has indicated there were minority partner provisions in the new contracts.

** the concerns of Ganfeng and the Mali Government together being able to outvote Leo at the LMSA level haven't changed, they (Ganfeng/Mali Govt) always had that ability? with or without the new changes in Ganfeng's shareholding of MLBV.

I cannot for the life of me find what the free carried 10% entitlements the government receives, but from Hummingbird & B2Gold, the government didn't acquire their "free" 10% until committing to the optional further 10% and it was then (from memory) that they were eligible to have 2 seats on the Board of their respective Malian companies,
~ for Hummingbird - Government of Mali has the right to appoint two directors to Société des Mines de Komana SA (SMK)
~ for B2Gold - lost information in the never never (means I can't find it)
Both the above examples were part of their respective "Establishment / Mining Conventions" which were issued around the same time as the convention for the Goulamina project.

cheers

Expand

Time will tell but I am quite convinced that this alteration to the JV relationship will prove detrimental to our longer term $$ interests - like just about every other corporate manoeuvre in this whole sorry saga. I think it reduces the contest of ideas over operational & strategic matters and changes what the “status quo” position could be (which, like proxy whisperers, the Mali Govt would be inclined to go along with) should such a situational vote arise in the future.

I simply don’t buy the line being pushed elsewhere that the extra 5% divorces Goulamina from the FFX shambles or somehow now makes the asset a “Chinese” protected species now in the eyes of the Mali Govt. I don’t think Ganfeng needed this to materially increase its weight of influence in Africa either - they do not even breathe the same low-level air that our Perth executives do when it comes to pre-existing political clout. I think Ganfeng ultimately wanted this altered relationship for the purpose of control, and we might get to see just how that plays out for us sooner than previously thought.

On this note too, it is somewhat odd to see some posters (not you, @fooca) who were just a couple of weeks ago vociferously downplaying the idea of Ganfeng influence on the Mali Govt being real or significant or necessary for this project, who have now done a complete 180 turn since yesterday to argue that the new arrangement was needed and in fact helps the JV due to said weight of GF’s influence on Mali. Contradictory much?!