I wasn't implying that they would neglect paying, but they are...

I wasn't implying that they would neglect paying, but they are very busy and it might be a bit like:

** Listing Rule 3.13 An entity must tell the ASX the following information;
3.13.1 If the entity, is not an externally managed trust and directors may be elected at a meeting of security holders, the entity must tell ASX the date of the meetings and the closing date for the receipt of nominations from persons wishing to be considered for election as a director, at least 5 business days before the closing date for receipt of such nominations.

In this case there was an honest oversight by the Company in not reminding shareholders of this timeline. While this should not have prevented anyone from lodging a nomination, I would nevertheless like to apologise for the unintentional oversight.
~ then Fraser in his reply to this question of why they didn't accept the Nomination, from the AGM "I make no apologies" for the email being sent to the junk folder.
++ Query sent to the ASX but there doesn't seem to be any consequences for not adhering to the ASX listing rules;
~ adding to that, there wasn't an ounce of remorse from Fraser (as above)

Back to the main body of the original post (above) when did the Company receive the letter from the Mali Government, as it was clearly not on the day of the announcement!
Quote: "FFX confirms that it recently received a letter from the Minister of Mine, Mali ("the letter"). Firefinch has not received any court order. The letter stated, the Government will not approve any deed of sale of Firefinch's interest in Societe des Mines de Morila SA ("Morila SA") unless Firefinch resolves issues relating to the Morila Gold Mine."
~ I do not know under what clause/s of the Continuous Disclose rules that would exempt Firefinch from having to disclose;
(a) when the got the letter
(b) what the issues are, considering that it is now something new that is delaying the disposal of the 80% holding of Morila SA,
** IMO, they cannot deem these new good faith discussions as "confidentiality"

Again, did the Company announce the "said" letter only to debunk the content of the social media post?
Without any consequences for not adhering to the governing body's listing rules, it does make it somewhat problematic, if the (purported) Process doesn't yield an offer and the Company then progresses the plan B for the distribution of remaining cash and then to distribute the LLL shares once the escrow period expires. BUT, in the interim, the Company will be automatically delisted on the 28th June 2024!
~ automatic delisting occurs when a Company has been in a continuous suspension for 2 years
~ the time line for returning LLL shares once out of escrow I would estimate it would be a minimum of 3 months, given that there is provisions for the ASX to extend the automatic delisting process but that is generally for Company's that are close to finalising submissions for re-admittance.
~ In my opinion, if the Company is delisted, Part 2F.1 of the Corporations Act could provide an extension if the removal is contrary to the interests of the shareholders as a whole, or oppressive to; unfairly prejudicial to; or discriminatory against a security holder or holders.
++ Again, there is a lack of information (opinion) and this will worsen if the Company is unlisted.

Furthermore, the ASX can delist the Company if they do not have a core business/asset, (unsure) if the LLL share held in escrow can be deemed being financial? ?

cheers