jwhiteman I appreciate your input and Andy I understand where...

jwhiteman I appreciate your input and Andy I understand where you are coming from, but I asked for this thread not to be clogged so further information can be provided. Information regarding the fees involved in a class action could be obtained before hand and as it stands much of the information can be provided to any law firm taking action.

There is more than one way to hold this Company accountable:

Sandra Wutete is Senior Adviser, Listings Compliance (Perth). Sandra is already aware of LNGL’s market statements as I have previously corresponded with her. What I would suggest is that it takes a number of shareholder complaints to achieve action and it wouldn’t hurt for Sandra (or the ASX) to forward any complaint to ASIC and the ACCC. Sometimes the ASX will ask you to make a complaint to ASIC directly so that they may contact you by email, but it may be more effective to ask Sandra to refer it on to ASIC on your behalf.

Below I have provided Sandra’s email address along with sections of a response I received from her Re: LNGL. Remember this response was made to me prior to the current circumstances occurring. My view is that current circumstances reinforce the evidence of breaches to ASX Listing Rule 3.1, only now our situation is worse than before.

mailto:[email protected]


ASX would like to thank you for making the time and effort to bring these matters to its attention. These types of communications are an important source of intelligence for ASX in performing its role of monitoring and enforcing compliance with ASX’s listing rules.

Those judgments are initially for the entity’s board, and then ultimately for its security-holders and the broader investment community, to make. The role of ASX is to ensure that a listed entity meets its disclosure obligations under that rule so that security-holders and the broader investment community have the information they need to make those judgements.

Possible misleading and deceptive conduct: As an ASX listed company; LNG has agreed to abide by ASX’s listing rules. Listing rule 3.1 is the primary rule concerning disclosure of market-sensitive information. It says that a listed entity must immediately tell ASX of any information of which it is aware concerning it that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of its securities.

Where a listed entity is found to have not had a reasonable basis for such statements, then it will usually be held to have misled the market and be liable under section 769C of the Corporations Act. This sort of misconduct is regulated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (‘ASIC’.

Forward-looking statements will trigger an obligation under listing rule 3.1 when the entity knows sufficient information to reasonably indicate that a material prior statement will not eventuate as predicted, and that the deviation will be material to the price of the entity’s securities. ASX takes enforcement of listing rule 3.1 very seriously, and has specific measures to enforce this obligation.


FORWARD LOOKING ASX MEDIA RELEASE STATEMENTS MADE BY LNGL BETWEEN 12/2016 and 03/2018

Statements forecasting finalizing offtake agreements and reaching a financial investment decision

23/12/16 ASX/MEDIA RELEASE LNG LTD
Stated LNGL was” Finalizing offtake agreement efforts”

04/01/17 ASX/MEDIA RELEASE MAGNOLIA LNG 2016 THE YEAR IN REVIEW
Stated “We will be moving to finalize firm offtake agreements in the New Year”

30/10/17 ASX/MEDIA RELEASE SEPTEMBER 2017 QUARTERLY HIGHLIGHT
Stated “Confident of signing offtake agreements with credit-worthy buyers later this year or early in 2018”

03/2018 ASX/MEDIA RELEASE MARCH QUARTERLY HIGHLIGHTS
Stated “There’s ‘real potential’ to get a final investment decision by the end of the year”

LNGL’s forward-looking statements failed to materialise, and LNG failed to correct the statements made in its ASX market releases. Instead, LNGL perpetuated the continuance of these statements through associated media releases and statements via affiliated companies, industry interviews and twitter comments. The deviation that followed had a material decline on the price of LNGL securities during these periods, including a 59% decrease in the last financial year alone.


EXAMPLES OF BREACHES OF CONTINUOUS DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN 03/2017 and 03/2019

Statements forecasting reaching Financial Investment Decision, having the whole facility contracted; and beginning construction by 2018.

27/03/17 LNGL MEETING WITH PORT OF LAKE CHARLES DIRECTORS
Stated “Construction on the Magnolia facility is expected to begin later this year”

28/03/17 CHRONICLE HERALD INTERVIEW WITH JOHN BAGULEY COO
Stated “Construction of the Bear Head project could start by as early as next year”

31/03/17 LNGL INVESTOR PRESENTATION AND CONFERENCE CALL
“Forecast FID in July 2017”

14/06/17 COMMSEC’S TOM PIOTROWSKI INTERVIEW WITH GREG VESEY
Stated “Expected to “Have the whole facility contracted in the next 6 - 12months”

09/08/17 REUTERS INTERVIEW WITH GREG VESEY
Stated “The Company would likely finish selling remaining capacity at the Magnolia project by the end of 2018”

02/10/17 LNG NA GAS FORUM PRESENTATION
Stated “Confident of signing offtake agreements with credit-worthy buyers later this year or early in 2018”

22/12/17 HOUSTON CHRONICLE INTERVIEW WITH GREG VESEY
Stated “Talking about deals up to 25 million tons just to see who's going to sign first”

28/10/18 GREG VESEY / VIA TWITTER
Stated “We remain confident in our ability to reach FID whether or not China participates”

03/2019 REUTERS INTERVIEW WITH GREG VESEY
Stated “Expected to make FID in the second half of 2019”


As I have said, I have more information to provide, so expect more to come