The company can't even answer straightforward questions. Rather than addressing them in a direct and transparent manner by saying they are unable to answer at this time, they take the political route instead and just sidestep it. It clearly shows that they don't respect shareholders.
Any meaningful / material information is being leaked through unofficial channels (game of telephone). That shouldn't be the behavior of a company whatsoever, especially one of this size and one that is aware of how strained their relationship is with shareholders (beyond insto).
This decision to sell the Goulamina project also wasn't decided in the eleventh hour. They would have considered this scenario well in advance noting the government's stance and worsening political situation months ahead. Yet, they haven't even resolved the fundamental aspects that shareholders are asking, which reflects poor due diligence.
I suspect there is still an element of wanting to keep shareholders in the dark, especially ahead of the vote. Evidenced by the fact that material information is always being leaked at convenient times.
Below were the responses received from the company in relation to direct questions asked. Is anyone impressed with their responses?
Questions asked:
Clarification on Shareholder Approval Threshold for Acquisitions: The FAQ document (section 4.7) mentions a shareholder approval process for 'major' acquisitions.
- Can you define the specific criteria used to determine a 'major' acquisition?
- Company's response: We are currently focused on the getting the sale to Ganfeng done. We are unable to advise anything further at this stage regarding acquisition criteria.
- Reflection: We know this is a lie considering the recent conversation had between a shareholder and a Director of the company who shared detail regarding M&A touching on partnership, jurisdication and commodity type.
- The current language implies that management can pursue some acquisitions without shareholder input - Can you clarify this point?
- Company's response: Minor exploration opportunities, tenements etc will generally not need shareholder consent.
- Reflection: Answered.
M&A Contingency Plan and Capital Return: The company has outlined its intention to pursue M&A activity.
- What is the cut-off date for the M&A process before the Board considers alternative options, including the potential full return of capital to shareholders and a wind-up of Leo Lithium?
- Company's response: No cut-off date has yet been defined.
- Reflection: Answered.
- Could you please elaborate on what 'remaining strategic options' means?
- Company's response: Any remaining strategic options at that time - it means we would consider all strategic options that remain to maximise value to shareholders. That may also include winding-up Leo.
- Reflection: I understand the logic, but that doesn’t answer the question asked - What other strategic options would the company be considering outside of winding-up Leo Lithium? Or are they saying that they have no idea as it's too early to say and they want to keep all options open even considering the current circumstances that shareholders want clarity on this point?
- Given the focus on the Goulamina project and the current situation, many shareholders believe returning all remaining capital after taxes and fees should be the top priority - Why can't the company commit to this by a specific date (if the M&A process is unsuccessful) and proceed with a wind-up of Leo Lithium?
- Company's response: See Section 4.7 of the FAQ. in summary: (1) The current team has an experienced skill set in exploring for, developing, constructing, and operating projects in the critical minerals sector, having advanced Goulamina which is one of very few globally significant lithium mines to be constructed in the past two years. (2) Given the current soft market conditions, the Board believes there is an opportunity to undertake a thorough and disciplined review of potential opportunities in the critical minerals sector to understand if there is a highly compelling alternative opportunity that offers accretive returns to shareholders. Any major growth opportunity would be put forward to shareholders for approval. (3) If the proceeds from Tranche 2 cannot be effectively applied in an accretive manner for shareholders, then the remaining strategic options will be considered including the potential to return all funds to shareholders and a wind-up of Leo Lithium.
- Reflection: The referencing of Section 4.7 of the FAQ document does not answer the actual question asked – Why can’t the company commit to this by a specific date (if the M&A process is unsuccessful) and proceed with a wind-up of Leo Lithium?
- At what point, after receiving the tranche 2 payment, will the company decide to allow a timely wind-up to occur before the end of June 2026?
- Company's response: It depends on whether there is a sufficiently accretive investment opportunity and the board and shareholders would like us to pursue. No specific date has been given regarding a date to wind-up the company by.
- Reflection: Answered.
(20min delay)