Agree
The argument you are presenting is similar to the circularity argument I presented in this post: Post #:
42581956 Have a read of that embedded post as discusses the circularity of the argument but, however having said that, WFE failed to meet objectives (given they agreed to the ASX conditions in the first place). So the ASX can argue it was enforcing the agreement - Refer Post #:
42590191As I said in the first post linked above though:
"
Thinking through the licencing issue I think the key was Offtake Agreements, because if WFE had Offtake Agreements the licence issue would resolve itself IMO."
Why do I say the above, Offtakes per se before production normally have conditions like the Offtake continues to remain binding if the agreed production date/first deliveries date is met etc etc. Getting Offtakes would resolve the issue IMOas per the two embedded posts above where I deliberate on the issue, but the fact WFE did not have Offtakes meant it could never test the ASX's resolve on the licencing condition. At the end of the day, the initial proposed acquisition was entered into when cobalt prices were high, but over the last two years they have declined (probably due to supply > demand) and as a result the need for new projects was reduced which meant getting Offtakes was difficult. And because WFE couldn't get Offtakes the deal became hamstrung.
As I said in the first embedded post:
"I
MO, blame, or the substantial majority of it, here squarely lies with WFE IMO - there is no conspiracy theory here, just the outcome of a poor cobalt market in 2018 and 2019, albeit turning of late, that WFE should have advised the market on the impact to its relisting plans. The fact it is walking away at a time cobalt prices are improving, I just wonder how watertight were those cobalt agreements with suppliers, in the absence of Offtake Agreements with end customers."
Whatever happens I think the ASX can argue all they were doing were enforcing the requirements agreed with WFE and therefore the discretion they have not used is allowing that 2018 requirements to listing be changed (refer 2nd embedded post above).
We can debate whether the ASX really decided time to crack down on JB and the 'common investors' in his plays, but that would be speculating only.
It is all IMO but what is done is done. With Offtakes, like you have before mining, I suspect this would have succeeded btw as a condition of Offtakes would be get to production by xxxxx date, and that would the licencing issue to be dealt with IMO. Sad it didn't work out for SHs so just wonder what would have happened if the cobalt market remained favourable in 2018 and 2019 price wise to how teh market was at the time of the proposed acquisition.
Again purely speculating here
All IMO IMO