A key issue in all of this I think is how PLL exercise their...

A key issue in all of this I think is how PLL exercise their influence over SYA. They say in their reports and quarterlies that they have 'significant influence' over SYA and Atlantic. They must say this in order to comply with accounting standards and thereby present their accounts in the way they do. That is, to use the 'equity method' of accounting. This method shows as an advantage to their bottom line by boosting net assets. SYA (& Atlantic) aren't really controlled entities so can't be consolidated in the conventional accounting sense but can be 'consolidated' in a single line item within the PLL accounts, but only if they have 'significant influence' (but not control) over their investees ( ie SYA and Atlantic). --

SO WHAT with this accounting mumbo jumbo? --

The thing is, how this 'significant influence' is exercised ? Usually it's a relatively high share holding and / or a director rep on BOD. In PLL / SYA case it looks to be neither of these. Min Res have 'equity investments' in their accounts and they say in their last annual report how they exercise that influence over investees - they own a large slab and have someone on the board.--

Why can't PLL (like Min Res) say how they exercise their significant influence over SYA? Is it ownership level - at 13% not likely. Having a rep in the board? If yes, say who. If no, how is the influence exercised? --

Why can't SYA explain in their reports how they are 'significantly influenced' by PLL? All JV's don't have significant influence by the minority partner - SO WHAT is the influence over SYA that PLL claim to possess and that their method of accounting relies on?