Ann: Notice of Extraordinary General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-48

Hi SJ,

As odd as it may seem, nothing in my comments should suggest I begrudge deriving a fee or earning profits, nor that invested parties should be denied their reward for bearing risk. I’m not advocating that at all.

Unfortunately what I see here is the deliberate creation of partitions between different classes of shareholder. This EGM vote seeks to create an impenetrable barrier … and one doesn’t usually design impenetrable barriers unless one does not want others to see what was being done behind the barrier.

This is a commodity business. There’s not a lot of mystery required in selling coal. The proposal being put to EGM seeks to give ‘rights’, not ‘call options’, to a related party, then contractually seal off several important aspects of CKA future in an exclusive deal … and the effect hands one shareholder lasting autonomy over the results for all other shareholders, with the potential for any oversight then left in the hands of nominees of the related party. Yuk.

The Chair really needs to begin explaining how this is good for SH, because IMO this is not a good path for CKA to go down. It firstly weakens everyone’s position, then invites problems, then contractually seals off any commercial alternatives should problems matérialise.

Did u have any ideas/perpectives on how I might see the situation as net positive for SH?

Ta
A