Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-3

It looks to me like bpm want in, But why is the question.
They have tried through avenues unapproved by IDA board.


BPM’s action in requesting the resolutions appears to be in direct response to the
Board’s recent rejection of a confidential proposal which would have seen Indiana
acquire from a company associated with both BPM and Ms Brown (the “BPM
Associate”) an interest in a resources project which, in accordance with the terms of a
confidentiality agreement, we are not permitted to disclose (the “BPM Project”). After
considerable enquiry and investigation by the Board, the transaction was not
assessed to be in Indiana’s best interests based on the terms proposed.
• If the resolutions requested by BPM are passed, we would be concerned that the
BPM Nominee Directors would subsequently seek to find an alternate way to transfer
the BPM Project to Indiana on unfavourable terms.
• Moreover, if the resolutions requested by BPM are passed, this will see control of Indiana pass to BPM without shareholders receiving an offer for their shares, let
alone an offer at a premium to market at which control of ASX-listed companies generally pass.
• The BPM Nominee Directors do not seem to have the appropriate credentials and
experience for taking the Company forward, neither claiming any experience in conducting business in Tanzania and with Ms Brown not having any previous
experience as a Director of an ASX-listed resources company, nor do they seem to
have any plan of substance for Indiana other than, presumably, seeking to assist BPM Associate in transferring to Indiana its interest in the BPM Project.
• As two of the three current Indiana Directors, we have the requisite credentials and
experience to, and track record in, adding value to your Company, are totally
committed to advancing the Company’s Kishugu and Naujombo gold and Ntaka Hill
nickel-copper-cobalt projects in Tanzania, and we present to shareholders with no hidden agenda.


*The following rings alarm bells for me and I agree with McFadzean.

Discussions between the parties ceased in early February with the Indiana Board coming to
the view that there were a number of technical issues with the BPM Project including:
• What seemed like considerable previous exploration effort had identified few
attractive targets;
• Attractive targets, if any, were only potentially present at considerable depth;
• Investigation revealed the ground had been held and relinquished in the past by a number of groups of high standing;
• The status of tenure over some project tenements was not clear, with any such risk to
be passed to Indiana as a term of the proposed arrangements; and
• There seemed to be reluctance on the part of BPM Associate to facilitate Indiana undertaking due diligence to the level required by Indiana. Moreover, the transaction terms sought by BPM Associate were unattractive to Indiana, including:
• The issue by Indiana to BPM Associate of ordinary shares in the Company, as well
as performance shares; and
• The appointment of nominees to the Indiana Board by BPM Associate, which would
have resulted in BPM Associate having a level of control disproportionate to its shareholding.

As I have said several times before, "Mr Boyton knows the geology" and that should explain the reasons he is pursuing the shares.
Just not sure I like the manner in which he is pursuing them.
I will be voting against the Boyton proposals.
I would however like to see the current board get on with exploration and make us all some money not just JB.
W