It feels like they didn't expect anyone to notice the 'tenement...

It feels like they didn't expect anyone to notice the 'tenement holders' reimbursement' many SYA holders when presented with the evidence simply refused to believe it happened or buried heads in the sand as quick as they could. Two quarters in a row now SYA have put money into 1MC, 1MC is once again out of cash and trading at new all time lows after a poorly managed consolidation, raising will be difficult noting they don't even have a project.

I would be very surprised if anyone could find a precedent for this, but I expect no JV partner has ever propped up a failing partner in this manner.

The directors of SYA are not acting in the best interests of SYA shareholders by keeping 1MC solvent, should 1MC fail the tenements in WA will revert to SYA 100%. The advantage to having a JV partner is they bring capital you cannot reasonably commit to the project due to you other operations or the other team contains skillsets not available in your own organisation, what skillsets do the management of 1MC have that SYA does not have already?

SYA directors are failing in their duty to SYA shareholders and the reason they are failing is pretty clear. The people who gain the most out of SYA propping up 1MC are the common directors of each company at the cost of SYA shareholders, anyone who defends this is not being objective.

ASIC should be all over this like a rash.