“Believes” that’s not a certainty then.I trust that they’ve...

“Believes” that’s not a certainty then.

I trust that they’ve sought legal advice but big boys get it wrong, look at Banking Royal Commission in Australia. And if they’ve sought legal advice then why not tell the market it’s not subject to FIRV review? FFFX are quite careful about details now, so why omit this important detail?

Structural changes to ownership doesn’t change the fact FFZ owns the subsidiary that houses the Goulamina asset. So I can’t see how this is not subject to FIRB as it’s effectively a take over of proportion greater than a direct stake in the Manono asset owning company.

I’m no big boy, but I do know exactly what the preliminary view of the Treasury was for Yibin to tip toe away as if nothing was ever asked for.

The main thing to bear in mind is to ask is Goulamina considered a strategic resource in the sense is it a threat to the National Interest if Chinese entities take control or have an influential role contractualised on the beneficial interest. Consider that Ganfeng is the largest processor how does this impact diversification of global supply chains? This last question is on the mind of the treasurer when he commits to a prohibition order @ section 57 57. Orders prohibiting proposed acquisitions and disposal orders

By seeking legal advice Ganfeng via its engaged legal officers would have asked for a preliminary view from Frydenburg. This might explain why the spin off took so much time. If not then the company could easily clear this up, unless the reason is it’s not seen as a threat to the National Interest. Already though Ozblue thinks Ganfeng could stiff other complies it has offtskes with. Though I think that’s a mischievous claim as Ganfeng would lose ground if it tried that as other companies will take its place or new downtream lithia strategies escalated as EU screams for, this also points to why FIRB probably needs to review this transaction and yes it has retrospective powers now.

Since the other African asset owners by another Australian company was done a under 10% stake into its share registry with no board seat, the rules have become less restrictive: not just any SOE influence or equity interest in the concerned Chinese entity of concern (Ganfeng here) but foreign company per se is now subject to review. This adjusts to the reality China’s CCP potentially wields and exercises discretion over all Chinese companies decisions. Take a look at Ant Group as example.