Very good points Jimmy, however, if you follow the flow chart it...

Do you?

Very good points Jimmy, however, if you follow the flow chart it presents a strong case for the Board to disclose what they know to all shareholders to keep them fully informed under the rules of continuous disclosure (good & bad information - that's their job under s.180(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)), instead of shareholders discovering what is clearly material information about their company from external sources. IT'S NOT A GOOD LOOK.

If material information that is circulating from other sources outside the company is inaccurate or wrong, the Board has an obligation to address the issues.

Shareholders want answers to the following sample of questions:

1. Was the Co-O mine manager's services terminated? if so, why?

2. Has the mine manager been replaced by a Philippine ex-Police Officer, who just happened to be (as reported) in charge of the Managing Director's "Security Detail"? What Site Senior Executive (SSE) experience does the alleged 'new recruit' have to run a mine? Is this Best Practice? Is this exercising SAFE Practices under the Hierarchy of Controls? I am simply stunned at this, astonished & astounded if this is the case.

3. Why are there reports of a Royalty not being paid?
4. If the report is accurate, why has it not been paid by the X64 Board?
5. Who controls the cash?

By all means Jimmy, direct me to the announcement where it specifically states the precise reason WHY the HY23 report was not released to all shareholders.

The Board is not conducting an "Operational Audit" because an Unqualified Opinion was formed by the auditors that the accounts presented are "True & Correct" as at 31 December, 2022, but rather, the antithesis of this is in play, meaning what is the information presented to the Board to cause the Board to execute an "Operational Audit"? The Operational Audit is not the root cause, but rather the effect.

Further, when there is a sudden departure by an experienced Director especially under the conditions shareholders are witnessing with X64, as is the case here, it's often an indication there are deeper issues at the Board level and its a vote with the departing Directors feet to leave quietly. This has always been for the most part an unwritten convention. With the passage of time the reveal for shareholders will be something like:

"arrrhhh that's why "Jane/John Doe" Director departed, it all makes sense now..."

The mere fact that the X64 company is in Voluntary Suspension, a HY23 report suspended from being released to shareholders, A Q3 report now due, and now an experienced Director has suddenly resigned from the Board, are more mounting indicators something is seriously amiss. Based on my analysis the early indicators have been in play and unfolding since Q3, FY22.

You may not like or even trust (as you say), Vitrinite (Welker & Assoc.), you may not like Arbiter and Ruffer, however the fact of the matter is, none of these are lightweight investors & are rather sophisticated investors/shareholders, they as an aggregate hold circa 40% of the company, this means some 40% of the risk comes with their combined holding, they at least deserve representation at the Board table with the offer of a position. To label a major shareholder an activist is utterly ridiculous and most likely sales & marketing theatrics to control a narrative, especially when they hold a large chunk of risk.

The current 249D in play has put up an alternative Board as a replacement. To my knowledge, there are no Vitrinite Directors on the alternate Board presented to shareholders and has an Independent & Experienced Chair (an ex-CBA NED). Its a clean slate and a clean start for all shareholders from what I can tell. A new Board is charged with the duty of continuous disclosure for all shareholders. I would be quite confident a new Board is going to disclose all information (good & bad) to uphold and protect their reputations and of course comply with the Act.

All shareholders deserve continuous disclose of information within the Corporate Governance Structure, I sold my holding (as is disclosed) because of the indicators. However, at the time it did not mean my indicators were correct, it just meant the information (& lack there of) was in conflict with my investment philosophy & mandate. Whether it is right, is a lag indicator, that comes later (see above), so far to date, my indicators are correct because of the events that have now unfolded (which is now) not because i thought I was right.

I did lose money on my investment, I just didn't want to lose anymore. I delayed SELLing on the early indicators for sometime until the indicators were just too many & too 'loud' to ignore.

All Shareholders need continuous disclosure of information to make informed decisions on their investment.

The problem for shareholders now is, does it also mean the X64 Q1 & Q2 reports are incorrect as a result of the HY23 report suspended from release to all shareholders?

How many indicators do shareholders need to understand that major change is needed at the Board level in order to protect their capital investment?