Hi Fooca,
It's a long response from you but I'll try and keep mine succinct without boring you. All I can go on is correspondance from management, which has been lacking to say the least. So my interpretations will be as accurate as yours and are of course are up for debate.
The fact that the ATO wouldn't make a determination on the tax treatment of the in-specie distribution of the LLL shares, prior to tranche 1, indicates that the request included references to the tranche 1 payment, why? Was is a timing thing? The tax treatment of an in-specie distribution of LLL shares has nothing to do with a future dividend.
Management knew in December what the treatment of the tranche 1 was going to be. ATO will give a indication of the tax treatment of class ruling requests well before the action occurs which triggers it. If management were fishing to see if we'd be hit twice with tax i.e. Tax on in-specie LLL distro + tax on LLL Tranche 1 special divvy, then that is fine. But none of this was communicated, instead all this rhetoric around how complex it is just indicates, to me, that there is alternative motives for not providing clarity. It also sounds like management knew more about the request/ruling than they have let on IMO.
We'll be hit with a tax bill regardless. I suspect the LLL tranche 1 payment we'll receive via FFX will result in a similar tax treatment. So if we recevied it directly from LLL or via FFX I think the tax liability will be the very similar, if not the exact same - But we'll wait to see. Hopefully I'm wrong and pleasantly surprised.
However, I am a little concerned with the words used in this statement - "Firefinch will arrange for payment of most of the Tranche 1 LLL distribution and historic cash balance" - Why not worded "all of tranche 1 and most of historic cash balance"...?
It appears to me that management have been dragging their feet, things that should take days, maybe weeks, seem to take months. What else have they got to do at the moment? They don't even answer emails. Everything goes through a 3rd-party.
As for Matt Mitchell, first point - I'm not, and have never, accused Matt of anything nefarious at all.
Maybe I'm being a little harsh on some of the commentary on here. But if he wants to get on ASX boards then a couple of unfavourable posts on an internet forum will be water off a ducks' back.
I understand you must have a relationship with him to even ask for him to undertake this position, and I respect you wanting to go into bat for him. However, at the time of the nomination I thought "what's the point of this". He was not taking remuneration, has no stock holdings and didn't appear to have direct family/friends that needed looking out for (unless that's you or franky1 or someone else). What motivation does he have to do anything at all?
I don't beleive in free lunches. There's always an angle, even if it's in good faith, there's still an angle.
Even people that donate to charity get something in return (even if they claim not to) and that is to feel good about giving something you've earnt, away for free for those that need it more. I've made some assumptions on what Matt's getting out of this which may or may not be correct, but from my point of view his appointment hasn't resulted in any benefit to me as a shareholder. Maybe you've gained something out of the appointment, and if so, well done.
Maybe I'm just disillusioned with my holdings in this company and as a result, anyone associated with the company, which unfortuantely or fortunately for Matt, includes him.
Expand
