Ann: SLR:SLR Ready to Rapidly Progress Revised Leonora Proposal, page-16

I am a (very) long-term holder of SBM and my costs are under 10c with half my original stake sold at nearly $4. Leonora was the reason for my interest and the prospect they could turn around some of their other early acquisitions. I usually see little reason to argue here over the years because most posters have already made up their minds. But there seem some obvious facts here that no one is talking about.

I plan to vote against this because at this point I just do not trust the board is acting in shareholders' interests. I admit that I don't completely understand the intricacy of the legal ties. It seems that Genesis and SBM board are using this to avoid engaging with anyone else that would allow the true value of Leonora to be established. I have seen many takeovers but never one where the board did not allow due diligence on all offers. Engaging with SLR does not mean accepting their offer instead of Genesis, it only allows them to make their offer unconditional.

If the SBM board is using the legal clause as an excuse not to engage with SLR for their own reasons then it is not in shareholders interests. If they allowed Genesis to put in a clause that essentially prevents all other offers then it seems obvious to me that the Genesis offer is not the best value for SBM shareholders.

I would not trust a company that offers to trade or provide a service to me if they made their offer conditional on me not checking any of their competitors. That goes against the whole idea of a market.

I do not think that the debt covenants will be too difficult to deal with, given the implied value of the Leonora assets and two interested parties. I guess there is a small risk that the due diligence causes SLR to withdraw their offer and Genesis to come back with a new offer that is lower. Or that there are costs with restructuring the debt.

Finally, I would say that the board and management always have a vested interest in these transactions. Not because they get paid kickbacks or other benefits, but because of their future career. Which transaction will offer them the best future career payback? As for skin in the game, I think the big holders and institutions are the opinions to follow.

In the bigger picture then voting may not seem to make a big difference, but I like to make my own decisions and see how well my insight compares to the bigger shareholders and the ultimate result a year later. I don't vote in mundane AGM business but I will in this decision.