Last time they got a “qualified” sign off by the auditor,...

Last time they got a “qualified” sign off by the auditor, recognising that the auditor couldn’t satisfactorily and confidently affirm all was in order. To my read, the auditor noted they were not provided with the books for Morila for the period it was still in control, namely they couldn’t evidence the assets and liabilities at the time Morila decided to walk away.

To my read, they also noted in their report that there was a risk of liability but not necessarily established liability if the face value argument that FFX was not responsible for its subsidiaries held, and effectively to my read noted “if your argument that you’ve lost control is valid, which we won’t comment on but note your rationale for, then yes you could write off the asset we suppose”.

It is surprising that an auditor hasn’t done similarly this time around, noting the Mali situation as unresolved, particularly given the Board was satisfied to release a qualified audit last time. Legal action of this complexity could often take years, but audited financials still need to be published on schedule.

We talk a lot about experience required on the Board. We’re not running a mine anymore so mining experience seems a little less relevant. And you’d hope your Directors don’t have too much experience around navigating the situation we currently find ourselves in, lest you ask what their role was in finding themselves in that situation. What we do need is demonstrations that build/maintain trust and demonstrate a plan to return investor capital. This requires timely openness (even if some details need to be withheld, but not changing a story and/or only speaking up when pushed) together with consistency in action.