Member Info for an60

I hope you are right, Shuvlin

Proxy votes need to been in by Monday (midnight).

No Molefe presentation would send massive red flags.

Faith vote requested.

No thanks.

Seis,

My bag...

Still red flag tho'

Frog,

That would be very helpful.

But, clock is ticking.

Hopefully, they will explain why they need a total of 15% (2×7.5%) as a headroom in share allocations.

However these resolutions are presented, they are far in excess of the value required to allocate £1.5million worth of shares.

Therefore, I can only conclude that a significant proportion of these shares will be used to buy board and staff loyalty (ie more handouts).

No presentation or updates before vote, would be a massive red flag.

So, until more information is provided, it's a double NO from me.

Surely the large institutional investors won't approve this.

It can't be in their interest, can it?

It's a NO from me also.

LC's credibility is shot.

Now trying to pass a resolution (7.5% shares) that was rejected at previous GM, in addition to this dubious loan deal.

Time to go Leon....

JMK's silence on this is deafening.

More dilution.

£1.5million equates to about 50 million share dilution.

Assuming the full £10million is given as shares, that would be a 333 million shares dilution.

3.2billion shares in circulation last year would rise to over 3.5 billion, a 10% dilution.

Is this really good for existing LTH?

@An60 2mil

Unfortunately, remuneration packages are decided by the remuneration committee, which is populated by in-house, self interested parties. Is there a way to externally influence or change the make up of this committee?

Wouldn't that be nice....

Having read Dr Phosa's letter, I will vote for resolution 1, and vote against resolutions 2&3.

I simply don't trust that giving the board authority for resolutions 2 & 3, is in our interest.

Proper alignment with shareholders would imo, be putting some skin in the game like the rest of us.

So, just received hardcopy of GM notification and proposed reduction of the share premium account.

Having read Dr Phosa's letter, I will vote for resolution 1, and vote against resolutions 2&3.

I simply don't trust that giving the board authority for this, is in our interest.

Dr Phosa states that the board are unanimously in favour with their aggregated 9,404,025 shares, but states earlier that authority is required for "aligning employees' and stakeholders' interests with shareholders. This shouldn't be necessary if there is unanimity with the board. Sounds to me like an excuse to award more options...

Resolutions 1&3 require 75% of vote, and resolution 2 requires >50%.

One would have thought that for a country the size of Zambia, and with all the mining exploration going on, that there would be more than one Competent Person available

Chatmandu, so did I.

This time, I shall be voting against new share issuance for potential 'incentive' options for staff. Enough is enough....

? Technical Issues HarmProf ;)

More fool the class of 2016 shareholders.

That's a pity as I'm sure that I'm not alone in feeling that the idea of self-awarding share options is in poor taste given the current state of the sp.

Can't Leon's 1p option be Cancelled by shareholders as an AGM resolution?

Shouldn't Leon's remuneration package be renegotiated to say 50% of current salary plus 50% tied to performance related targets?

Also, would be nice if he put some skin in the game, like the FD.

Just some thoughts...