Hi Kel,I can hear you pitching for stability. I think the other...

Hi Kel,

I can hear you pitching for stability. I think the other choice that shareholders will seriously consider is change.

Shareholders will not soon forget the evasive wafffle served up in last years AGM in response to very real and serious questions. This same Board is now seeking permission from shareholders to continue what they were doing. Not an appealing proposition.

I agree that protecting the continuity of a team in full flow would be important… if that team was in full flow. No rational shareholder would deliberately undercut their own investment. However stability doesn’t equal success, nor does change equal failure.

The reality is this team is not in full flow and arguing in favor of the benefits of stability in this situation are not as clear as you might like.

Instead there is a strong argument that this team has been too cozy and too stable for too long and has run out of ideas. There is a strong case for some genuine independence, some fresh faces. The Chair sits on both sides of nearly every deal and shareholders have contributed more to cap raises than insiders. Seems the lawyer has already got one foot out the door (just in case?). The Cornish Lithium deal lines the pockets of the Chairmans private company but LPD shareholders get zero from that deal for 15-20years. It is galling.

This cozy crew has reduced shareholders to beggars and we are now faced with decisions akin to throwing a hostage to fortune… by voting for stability? Again, not an appealing proposition and not the only option available to non-insider shareholders.

Some might see a silver lining in the CL deal. Even if that deal doesn’t provide any income for LPD, surely if CL can commercialise the LMax tech then surely LPD could trade off the back of that proof? Yes. Of course, but when? The proof (at scale) requires CL ramp up to nameplate production. That can take years. In the mean time LPD will need working capital to stay alive. My concern is that this current team has burnt their credibility and raising new working capital will need new faces. Many others have already highlighted the associated dilution at current levels so I won’t go over that painful reality.

The current crew is definitely not the only team that could secure value for shareholder (especially if CL can commercialises the tech). We should not be held hostage. There is a strong argument that shareholders need a Board that fights for company interests, not arrange circumstances that suit their lifestyle or line their own pockets.

Go the slow ‘pus

AM47