LLL (ASX) General Discussion

Originally posted by fooca: ↑

re: your post on FFX thread
"They refuse to tell Share holders and the ASX anything. They were in receipt of a letter from the Mali government and told share holders they required a suspension from trading due to DSO. Witholding the information contained in that letter from shareholders should be enough to have a few people removed from the company starting with Simon."

** Sacking Simon is your solution?

The Company acted accordingly to the Listing Rules of the ASX, namely their Continuous Disclosure obligations and/or the sub clauses of Listing Rule 3.1A
Which clearly states, Listing Rule 3.1 does not apply to particular information while each of the following requirements is satisfied in relation to the information
~ 3.1A.1 clearly states; one or more of the following 5 situations applies; (I have only posted the 2 relevant clauses)
** the information concerns an incomplete proposal or negotiation;
** the information comprises matters of supposition or is insufficiently definite to warrant disclosure;

For a full copy of the Continuous Disclosure Listing Rules
https://www.asx.com.au/documents/rules/Guidance_Note_8.pdf

It is debatable on whether they should have lifted the (18th July) Trading Halt before all discussions were completed, but the reason for the initial trading halt (DSO) had been addressed, as in the directive to cease DSO operations and although the Company submitted further information, there has been no response.
~ DSO cancelled has no material impact on the progression of the project, and quite honestly you can say what you want about the Government but the "new" minister is protecting the mineral reserves of Mali and getting the most out of Companies that they can?
The DSO was not in the pre-existing plan, so the "nod and a wink" (previous broad support) wasn't a documented request/approval.

Opinion: The 2nd Trading Halt was necessary as the Mali Government appears to want to totally encompass the Goulamina Project into the new mining code.

Mexican standoff, but from all the Mining Journals / Mining Codes from Mali that I have read they all indicate a progressive shift to the newer code is basically the norm BUT excludes taxes (both import and company) and royalties (to name just 2) which remain under the code when the Exploitation Licence was approved - in the case of Leo Lithium that will/should be the 2012 Mining Code.
Obviously, the Government had different ideas, BUT why are Kodal different? According to their announcements, they will come under the 2019 Mining Code but have yet to have a licence issued.

Lastly, I am actually pleased that Leo Lithium didn't succumb to the ASX demands for more information, when they are following their Continuous Disclosure rules, I know they are governing body but they should not expect information that the Company is excluded from releasing under the above Listing Rules.

Pity they were not so robust and dogmatic with all the queries the were sent in relation to FFX.

Until we get further information/clarity and a definite position of both the Company and the Government, I'm personally happy to let it run its course.

cheers

Expand

Spot on!