Unfortunately, yes. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see (and...

Unfortunately, yes. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see (and believe in) a reversal of fortunes, but for all of the sharp legal minds on retainer, the ”deep African experience” of directors, and the high flying Ghanaian environmental law rewriters associated with these two (related) companies, it is a very big ask. If I were a Firefinch director right now I’d be very circumspect about voting the 17.6% block where there could be an arguable conflicts of interest, real or perceived, especially when Firefinch is a party to both the 6-party MoU with the Govt and the Tripartite deed with Ganfeng that gives rise to this disposal of Goulamina.

Things here rarely go according to plan, so they had better be sure of what they are doing with the block vote at Firefinch because, as a dual holder, I will be furious if this all ends up in drawn out litigation with a first mover claimant arguing FFX is/was conflicted with its vote.

Consider too that today’s announcement could be perceived as a concession that voting is not going the Leo board’s way on some or all of the proposals, hence the need to clarify and try to increase confidence around its post-Tranche 2 future. So if Firefinch was already assumed to be supporting the resolutions with their 17.6% because their directors believe no conflict exists, then what does that say about how many big blocks of votes must be going through already that are against the board’s recommendations?! As we are frequently reminded by the rage posters and others, retail supposedly plays no part here - we are just along for the ride and it’s the T20 and fundies who will make the ultimate call. In which case today’s announcement suggests to me they aren’t playing ball.