As frustrating as it is ; they are actually following the rules ; please refer to ASX Listing Rules Guidance Note 8 Continuous Disclosure: Listing Rules 3.1 – 3.1B,
A shortened more palatable version is
https://www.asx.com.au/documents/asx-compliance/abridged-cd-guide-mark-up.pdf
A voluntary suspension is basically the same as a trading halt...they dont need to provide you with any further information apart from overarching explanation .
Reason for the suspension is provide below in the rinse and repeat ‘request for voluntary suspension .
See below marked red. Below that, is the a further breakdown of the reason. It's pretty black and white what the issue / reasoning is...as I've said; just like if it was a trading halt, they don't need to elaborate any further .
Reasoning and explanation provided ; whether the likes of garret or others prefer to state it's otherwise, then that's up to them; but ASX would have requested that the company to provide summary specific to the reasoning of the request for voluntary suspension.
I agree it's frustrating ; but does the highlighted wording below not provide you with enough information to ‘in a nutshell’ explain the reasoning to someone if asked within 10-20 seconds?
Short - (1) mining licence is for all area under application for that tenement as per the DRC mining code
(2) CAMI ( where DRC mining applications get processed through) ; only issued southern section...this is contrary to the mining code
Layman comparative - if you got the rights to explore a plot of land of 1000m2 ; you discovered an economically resource in the initial 500m2 and you said, this is great, I'll apply for the mining licence now, there enough here to mine for now and recover the rest in the remaining 500m2 when I get up and running....your licence arrives in the post, but they have only given you the licence for the area you found something......the rest, is left under a exploration licence and you'd actually need to apply later for a mining licence on that area...which maybe declined and others get into that area where you did all the leg work for initially..
I reckon you’d be pretty pissed ; I don't have much doubt that the northern area would hit a few roadblocks within the process second time round and would get into the hands of Cong, Klaus etc, backhander to Cami director general and/or others
Mining codes are there for a reason and drc mining code wasn't complied with lmo and I reckon with management and legal opinions.
Cong, Cami DG, Klaus and co are grubs whom have been behind the delays to date imo...they have caused this think to blow out by well over a year........
Do you except Ferguson just so be ok with all that and just bend over ; I've been pretty critical of Ferguson in the past ; but fully behind what he's currently doing, he's basically spent the last 4 months in Africa trying to push this thing through.
The company is only going to provide nutshell information at this stage ; they ain't going to get down ( nor are they obliged to under as ruling whilst in suspensions / halts) into the nitty gritty which may actually be advantageous in hearing, to the likes of the undesirables as mentioned above and cause further delay to the company .
Anyway, hope this goes someway in helping to explain
marked red below
