Well, I’ve been “fortunate” enough to have received a phone call on behalf of the board.
Whilst it would be be extremely easy, using a series of creative expletives, to them them how I felt about the board, instead I provided feedback for them to consider i.e. if you want to minimise the potential impact from the shareholder action group, simply provide a transparent communication to all shareholders so that they are aware of what is occurring e.g.
- What is the issue/s within the letter received from the Mali Government, and what steps have been taken to both quantify and rectify this?
- Why are we incurring costs in relation to “selling” and asset that we have written off?
- Why are we still incurring costs in relation to finding a buyer for FFX? Either there are aspects that need to be resolved first (letter from Government etc) which negate the need to be spending the money, or Treadstone haven’t been able to secure a sale and as such should be have been removed from being paid a retainer months ago.
- Why don’t they propose a resolution guaranteeing the distribution of LLL shares post escrow, providing certainty to those that are seeking this?
I mentioned that if the board really wanted to retain their roles, all they have to do is provide what the shareholder action group are proposing, and that by being upfront and honest with shareholders they may stand a chance of remaining employed.
PS - I voted the second the email came out.
