Member Info for Laverda

Mijas, I don't trade so probably traders are better to ask about ebb and flows.

An updated and simple website would help, people really should be going to the horse's mouth first. They can't it was the last time I looked two or three years out of date in the written information.

Three changes of plan also does not help. Change notification and all communications associated virtually void, but people remember and quote them.

We don't know when Kodal knew they needed a phased development submission, between April and October but we don't know exactly when, so some of those communications are also void and superceded.

Then finally the legal workaround so Hainan could pass over the cash before the mining office opens again to deal with our mining licence transfer from one company to another.

This is temporary and was in no previous plans.

So all a bit complicated for the average investor. And all that change creates all the debate on these boards.

But a good website could have covered all of this off.

Daz, his posts sound like he is heavily into Leo Lithium, sounds nervous.

He can write good stuff when he supports something.

Was he involved with 88E?

Daz423, did you read his posts?

Because of my mining interest and past history plus reading up loads about bunding, storing tailings etc and the changes to our Environmental submission re storage of material to go from DMS to flotation, I also noticed an abscence at Leo Lithium of an RNS or presentation update regarding storing DSO on their ground for a different purpose than feeding their plant, that jumped out at me, and I was surprised but not knowledgeable in this area about road permissions, raw material is much higher traffic than processed material - just observations.

Onlyking, 'it is likely', not that I am certain it will be.

Our licence can only transfer once the office is open, they were Bernard's words. Unless of course he was wrong.

Onlyking, Bernard clarified that leo lithium issues are different to ours

The letter stated DSO to Leo Lithium and looking back through all of their releases there is no environmental submissions for DSO etc.

Is that the part you think is speculation or were you referring to something else?

Dazaliam is up to his nuts in Leo Lithium.

For anyone who does not know he is a prolific poster here and in Australia. He is known for posting one version of a story here and a different version in Australia.

He is crapping himself in case when the suspension lifts on Leo Lithium because those are self inflicted issues regarding DSO etc, that many may jump ship to here.

So he is rubbishing Kodal on the Australian leo lithium site.

It is unlikely he is alone.

Makes sense now.

However with our ultra low current share price and massive headroom it probably looks like a more attractive move.

Rob, Leo in two ways, whatever they have done wrong will be separated from us at long last.

Also it is likely that the office is up and running again and our licence will transfer. Ending crazy speculation around this.

But how much do you want to bet that the same posters find 'another major concern'.

I would agree musicman, and the approach to 🎄 Christmas the worst time for share price.

Could be a couple of RNS releases before then, three drill rigs spinning and potentially plant design finalised, order in and construction started.

100notout, Nielle and Fatou are starting up in the New year.

Bernard did think that they might take Nielle to a maiden value but did not say much more than that. Nielle may be the one that got the offer as he seemed non committal.

Daz, regarding cut and paste, there was an awful lot, but much of it was pre mining office issue in September and pre phased development notification acceptance.

So difficult to know if the facts from previous RNS releases remained correct or had to be altered to proceed with the mining development.

For example (not cut and pasted by accion) all of the change notification (from September 2022) progress reports were negated except for the parts required for the phased development notification, we can guess which remained relevant but can't be sure.

Equally and clearly from the last two funding communications, the structure was altered so that the construction could progress, so which parts were correct and incorrect from previous communications again we can only guess.

So really the majority pointless posts.

Cheers Daz, what is his name on twitter?

He does not communicate as genuine. Why does he not lead into his communication first, ie give some context.

Parachutes in now and then - a bit baffling.

There is nothing of concern here above normal junior miner constructing a mine risk.

If we are going to concern ourselves about the quality and validity of every legal document or arrangement then investing in any company is a bad idea. Unfortunately there has to be a level of trust in the contractors or staff involved in the making of these, and law and often regulation, is open to different interpretation. Fact of life.

No way can any CEO, unless head of a law firm, fully and accurately relay these structures in anything like complete form.

People that know the least tend to think they know the most in these areas, people experienced in these areas tend to have a good idea of the limits of their knowledge.

Yes Daz, there is no way that a prefix before a list of conditions including a claim etc that states deemed in trust can be simply taken to mean they trust Bernard and his team laughable.

It is also interesting how some assume cutting and pasting endless communications supports what they are saying without actually addressing the paragraph in question. The very section they are raising as a group effort, or same poster different names.

Is that classed as social spamming? I am not up on these things.

I also noticed accion only turned attention again here when the excellent news dropped.

I think these posters are the usual mischief making crew, fastjet, Dazaliam etc.

However what I think they are feeding off here is a stream of RNS and interview releases around a change notification.

This changed to a phased development notification submitted in October.

The mining office issue I think was September.

Any communication prior to September could not include the workaround for the mining office as it was not known at that time.

Kodal would not have a finalized workaround prior to acceptance of the phased development notification as it would not be worth wasting the cash in case the office opened again.

So only the final RNS and interview can be taken as final completed and correct.

One interview earlier Bernard simply said it was complicated.

None of us can go back through all RNS detail from September to November and categorically state that each fact remains relevant and correct, we don't have that level of detail.

I keep coming back to the same unanswered question for those posters, if KMUK already fully owns the mine as these posters maintain, why is there these conditions for the protection and benefit of KMUK?

Not a trick question. Also remember KMUK is also partly owned by Kodal.

It couldn't be that it has been placed in trust outside of the company for the benefit of KMUK until the mining licence finally transfers?

None of this affects the ongoing development of the mine, Leo will get sorted, their 2m dollars will transfer and our mining licence will move over.

Then this crew will be looking for another detail to try and disrupt the chat board.

They will have 10% - to clarify

Accion, they will have, but whether it is before or after the other paperwork clears I do not know. It would not matter if they were already signed up or not as it is simply a shell. There has not been any word about purchasing a further 10%.

Accion you have it wrong. The government has 10% of LMLB, KMUK owns everything in LMLB apart from the government share. Kodal Minerals owns 49% of KMUK. Xinmao owns 51%of KMUK. Anything under KMUK is the responsibility of KMUK for which Xinmao and Kodal will have limited liability.

There is no way that Kodal can be liable for anything that is already owned within the JV company. Therefore it must not fall within their ownership.

I don't at all see deemed under trust as some sort of gentleman's agreement when it goes on to mention claim period etc.

I think you are just showing an ability to cut and paste, no ability at all to decipher the situation.

Accion for the year ended March 2023 was your last link.

Why would someone who already directly own something - using your view of the situation - place it in trust for the benefit of themselves?

You avoided this question?

Accion, your cut and paste are from early in the year, prior to any ownership of KMUK by Hainan and from the change notification submission.

This was altered to a phased development notification and due to the hold up with transfer of licence plans changed, and if you would like to explain the trust section of this if the structure was as you outline

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/KOD/kodal-and-hainan-funding-package-completion-oj7oyz6vjx864vn.html

Why in trust for the benefit of KMUK, if already in KMUK?

Accion, my apologies I replied in a different thread. Please see that reply too.

I also noticed that your cut and paste 'to also be owned 100% owned KMUK. It doesn't say that it already is.

But it is clear on what has completed.

Accionista, good morning.

I agree regarding JV, it is in the last presentation, in print, if anyone doubts it.

Regarding the transfer of the licence, rather than an endless debate about the meaning of finalised or completed and in the last video Bernard saying that Future Minerals will end up under Kodal UK Mining, he did not say that it was under it already.

Although I do remember some mumblings in a previous interview where I believe a mistake was made, so would understand anyone thinking that had completed. Legal stuff is really complicated and Bernard spoke here before it had been started, however in the last video in November he spoke after it had been completed, the two do not match.

I can ask a simple question, if everything was under Kodal UK Mining and as we know Kodal UK Mining is 51% owned by Hainan.

Why would there be anything else to complete and why would there be conditions attached to the cash should the licence not transfer? If it was under Kodal UK mining then Hainan own 51% and need no t&C's.

Obviously if everything was owned under the JV and completed there are no conditions.

Furthermore how could a licence transfer to a company with different ownership without the government's authority?

A mine cannot sit out of ownership of any company on its own either. So the company transferred but the mine remain isolated.

Anyone want to explain?