Ann: Becoming a substantial holder, page-38

Today's ann indicates that the call for an EGM to replace the 2 female directors came as a real surprise to the Board, especially to Bronwyn Barnes I dare to say.

That's an interesting thing to say in view of the fact that Rob Martin, the 3rd Director, was reported in Saturday's WA paper as supporting the motions. '

The only other director of Auris, Rob Martin, is understood to support the changes.'​

Is he behind the move?

Things that I have heard on the grapevine for a little while now is that some holders in the top 50 or so have queried the independence of Bronwyn Barnes (potential for undue influence from Micheal Fotios), and the practical experience of Susan Vearncombe (more of an academic type).

The grapevine also says that Richard Pugh was treated shabbily in the later months of his employment, and perhaps because of someone with geo knowledge outside the company unfairly and unreasonably influencing the Board.

Factors?

Anyway, we'll know about the EGM soon enough.

In the meantime, what's the TH all about? The use of 'potential material transaction' regarding a farm-in Agreement has had me puzzled, still puzzled in fact. A farm-out/in is usually followed by a joint venture if the exploration by the other party (the one farming in) is successful. TLM and SFR jv'd. They now mine Monty and explore the Springfield tenements as a jv, with the contributions and ownership etc SFR 70% and TLM 30%. Is a jv the 'potential material transaction'?