Member Info for addicknt

I'd sent a note to Fawzi containing a few questions about recent developments and received the following answers:
A single employee appears to have been responsible for the fraud and has been dismissed from the company. I asked if he was being prosecuted and didn't receive an answer, merely that the company is in the process of retrieving the funds.
I asked if Jason's removal from the board was as a result of the misappropriation but was assured that it related to the fact the company feels it doesn't need two people on the board with a strong exploration background. I'm not sure which board member this refers to - Mather? (I'd have thought DC was more of a development man) If so it seems odd to give preference to a part time NED over a hands-on, full timer. I was not convinced by this answer.
I also asked why it had taken five months to inform shareholders of the discovery. Fawzi replied that they had appointed EY immediately and they've only just completed their investigation. Again, this doesn't really answer the question. You could take the view it's better to wait to have the answers before informing shareholders or, you could argue shareholders should be informed straightaway, which is what normally happens. Given the market appears to have shrugged the news off, I'd suggest it was perhaps the right approach.

MR, 'fantastic day so far'. Were you referring to your investment in POG? Or was it EUA? Let's hope so.

RK, to be fair the company has made significant changes and it's to be hoped we can put all this stuff behind us. Having said that, it's now easy understand why our main shareholders wanted Mather to go - they quite obviously knew a great deal more than we did, unsurprisingly. And I'm sure they'll maintain the pressure in the light of recent developments.
Enjoy your cruise.

Copperpot, sadly, all the evidence you need is clearly laid out on pages 4&5 of the MD&A. It may, or may not, have been exactly the same scam as JJ mentioned, but it was obviously something very similar.

Mister I tried to answer that the other day.
One possibility is that existing shareholders are offered pro rata shareholding in newco. The other is that Solg plc holds all of the shares...this was cause a huge uproar and, in my opinion, wouldn't be allowed to happen.

Rich3, quite right. I'm afraid only an ostrich investor ignores such things.

CD, don't talk such utter nonsense, "such a good/solid external audit system"...you're having a laugh, aren't you?
As for selling out, yet more total tosh from you. I have a large number of shares and the fact I find today's announcements unusual and concerning should tell you that I care sufficiently about my shareholding to take such things seriously.
Only an utter eejit would believe that fraud perpetrated by an employee and undetected by a quite obviously lazy management team, is anything other than concerning.

I wonder what our main shareholders think of all this? Indeed, did they know about before December's agm? which may explain why they were lobbying to force a re-election vote for Mather.
Regardless as to whether they knew or not, they are not going to be happy and I'm sure DC has been rushing around assuring them everything is in hand. Was Jason removed from the board because of this?
I'm genuinely surprised we've had a pretty good day today (so far), this sort of scandal normally scares the bejeezus out of the market.

As I said earlier, I'd like to know who the criminal is and what action is being taken against him/her. Can we expect to see someone facing trial/execution?

Woody, 1&2) the amount was taken over a period from 2017 to 2021 so would have been easier to disguise. But you are right, someone i.e the CEO and FD, weren't paying much attention to the costs. Both are no longer in position.
3) I think you know the answer to that.
4) Possible, but unlikely.

Interesting that it's taken the company five months to inform shareholders of the theft, isn't it?
I also note the establishment of a Strategy Committee which has been established, inter alia, to examine proposed M&A developments.

RK, how do arrive at your conclusion that we won't need any more cash until Q1 2023?

I've realised I probably misinterpreted the theft issue. I was trying to understand how it would have been done and now think I understand. I'm assuming cash was going out of the door to whomever was responsible and they were claiming the payments as expenses which were of a capital nature and were thus capitalized, in other words false invoices...is that your understanding RK?

I should add that I find this revelation shocking and it reveals the lack of control the board was exercising, or rather, wasn't exercising. Heads must roll for this egregious example of dreadful corporate governance, but the problem is, whose head?

RK, I didn't read it as straightforward theft, rather it was the illegal capitalization of expenses. The questions are; who was responsible and why did they do it?

Looking at the balance of the board it's quite clear the old Mather axis of influence has now gone. I wonder if this latest announcement was part of the move towards better corporate governance that DC mentioned recently?

Operating expenses showing a $5m increase for the nine month period when compared to the previous year. Employment expenses up $2m. And the accrued financing costs no w standing at almost $10m.
$38m cash in the bank as at the end of March.

Copper, it's not a question of having disappeared, it's simply the amount of BS on this board recently doesn't make it worth reading.

I think the one thing we tend to overlook is the commitment which was given to CGP to create shareholder value. This was made over a year ago and so far the company has not delivered.
The question is, how long will it be before CGP start stirring the pot again? Or has our board laid out a very clear plan which is keeping them quiet?

CD, it would depend upon how the share ownership was structured. If existing holders were given a pro-rata holding in newco clearly BHP and NCM would have an identical holding (this route is quite common for spin-offs), however, the situation becomes more complicated if SOLG plc own the shares and there is no pro-rata distribution. In my opinion, if the latter route were to be pursued it would be game over as there'd be a furious reaction against the arrangement.