Lithium Related Media Articles, page-18269

Very logical responses coming through with this all seemingly tied in with how the board have mapped out this strategy in the best interest of the company and as you explain here @CatMuncher rather than just saying no to ALB after best and final and watching them walk we now have a situation that retains a higher price. This is a master stroke and many of us have given credit to Tony from the start for knowing this game well. It's looking very fitting as we get to see some rationale behind it all.

What I don't understand is all the talk around a blocking stake. A hostile take over requires 90% but Tim has 15% so that's already enough to block a hostile take over which we've ruled out a long while back. So looking forward preventing ALB from getting this over the line with votes Gina's 10% adds to Tim's 15% is enough to block but why will this even be necessary if Gina's 10% gets her on the board? Straight off the bat, unless she's in favour of ALB she'll be able turn this unanimous support around and it's all over before you can say "the last time ALB did any mining was in 1982". Hence the board is no longer in favour and DD doesn't even get started, or at least it doesn't go any further. Could be the reason for a "limited due diligence".

So the way I see Monday we get multiple announcements including Gina's substantial holder notice and also a change in sentiment from the board regarding ALB. Blocking stake seems only necessary as insurance.