I guess there might be a number of shareholders who have sold...

I guess there might be a number of shareholders who have sold out of this Company Monsieur Wilson, and perhaps looking at the market more broadly for opportunities given the volatility and today’s announcement regarding the retail sector.

It certainly speaks volumes when comments by a reputable and well researched contributor like jkerr are taken down, but fortunately for you, I and many other shareholders who share information here, we now are able to share it directly with jkerr.


For the record, the Company’s Corporate Governance Principles state:

Principle 1 – Lay solid foundations for management and oversight
The Board is responsible for the corporate governance of LNGL. The Board guides and monitors the business and affairs of LNGL on behalf of the shareholders; Ensuring there are adequate internal controls and ethical standards of behaviour adopted and complied with….

Principle 2 – Structure the Board to add value
Disclosure and engagement: The Board is charged with the responsibility of protecting the interests of LNGL’s shareholders including: Duty of care, skill and diligence; Duty of loyalty and conflicts of interest; Dealing in LNGL’s securities; Market Disclosure Policy; Corporate Governance Policy; Director Code of Conduct and Policies….

Principle 3 – A listed entity should act ethically and responsibly
The Code requires all directors to uphold the highest levels of integrity when conducting their business….

Principle 5 – Make timely and balanced disclosure
LNGL’s corporate governance policies include a Market Disclosure Policy; The Board reviews copies of all material market announcements prior to release….

Principle 6 – Respect the rights of security holders
LNGL places significant importance on effective communication with shareholders and is committed to keeping them informed of all major developments that affect LNGL. The Market Disclosure Policy highlights the communication approach taken by LNGL.

Principle 7 – Recognize and manage risk
….


You and many others know my views on this Company’s Corporate Governance related actions over the last four years and the fact that I have presented substantiated evidence of over thirty statements made by the Company on no fewer than twenty separate occasions.

Let’s look at the following Legal Principles

1) Duty of Care
Duty of Care is the legal obligation to ensure no loss or harm comes to others as a result of a business conducting an activity. It refers to the standard expected of the business to prevent foreseeable loss. Due Diligence refers to the Management of Duty of Care.

2a) Breach of Duty
Liability results from failure / breach to uphold that legal duty.

2b) Types of Breaches (Intentional / Negligence)
The primary difference between an intentional breach and negligence is that an intentional breach occurs when someone acts on purpose, while negligence happens when someone isn't careful enough.

2bi) Intentional Breaches - (Misrepresentation)
Liability can be established on the basis of intention, negligence and strict liability. Generally, to prove a prima facie case of intentional misrepresentation, the plaintiffs must prove that: The defendant made a material misrepresentation. There are three main types of misrepresentation, fraudulent, negligent, and innocent. Proving misrepresentation? A misrepresentation must be false, and you need to prove to a court that the statement is false.

2bii) Negligence
Negligence is failure to uphold the expected duty of care (Due Diligence) and includes:


The above principles apply to a person, or persons rather than the Company and are more relevant in a Civil Case of Law (e.g. against a Director) rather than a Class Action Case (e.g. against a Company)

I guess arguments that could be posed could be:
Was there a failure to adhere ASX Listing Rules?
Was there a breach of duty in the dissemination of other speculating market forecasts?
Was there a failure to uphold Duty of Care and Due Diligence to the standard expected?
Were managerial statements bias towards achieving BTA’s and FID over the financial risks?

A determination may be reached based on defining and determining:
Level of Experience / Knowledge; Diligence; Integrity; Openness
Bias; Speculation; Misinformation; Misleading Conduct; Misrepresentation; Deceptive Conduct principles

Following that
Damages / Loss would need to be established based on the above information


In my opinion: Speculating on unmaterialised projections of successful signing of offtake contracts and achieving FID over Financial Risk Management Policies have materialised and failed to protect stakeholders from decreases in share price valuations that followed the aforementioned unmaterialised forecasts and statements.

This is not an accusation or a claim made by me, it is rather my opinion and summation of events as I perceive as a shareholder, presented with some basic legal principles related to Civil Law.