Ann: Change of Director's Interest Notice, page-14

Thanks temple.

This Board room situation is an absolute schemozzle, and it's the fault of both Bronwyn Barnes and Michael Fotios.

I know a bit about the law .

This is my advice, and what I would recommend to the Board.

1. Bronwyn Barnes has absolutely no right to stay on the Board. Why? Because she was validly voted off at the GM. I have no doubt about that.

2. The 3 people who were validly voted on to the Board represent us shareholders; no-one else.

3. The Company had 3 Directors in total before the meeting, and had in fact been represented by 3 directors, not 4, for some time. Therefore, the same position has to apply after the GM, unless the new Board chooses to make it 4. I am sure that it has done no such thing. Therefore. there should be just 3 directors still. However, there are 4 contenders. The truth is though is that 3 are legitimate and 1 is an imposter. Neither BB nor MF can validly argue that she has a position. It can't be seen any other way.

4.

Then, we have to determine whether or not Michael Fotios is still entitled to have a representative on the Board. If he does, then his rep would have to be 1 of the 3. BUT, each one was validly voted on. Their incumbencies were personally created - Rob Martin, Neville Bassett and Brian Thomas were voted in, no-one else. Question: would the shareholders who voted these 3 men on want to accept that 1 then becomes a rep for MF? Seeing that the battle was really either it's them or us, no way should that happen unless it's part of a compromised solution (see below). The effect of the 3 ('us') being installed was really to remove MF's ('them') influence. Therefore, I would advise that not only has BB been a persona non grata vis-a-vis the company's Board since the vote, but also that the vote extinguished MF's right to have rep on the Board. C'est la vie Michael!!​

5. Having given that advice though, I would counsel the warring parties to reach a compromise so that MF is not totally alienated. He is, after all, the largest shareholder and believes in the company and its prospects. Morally he deserves respect and an audience. So, what's the solution? My thinking is that it should be based on the defusing of the 'them and us' culture that seemingly continues to exist. Drastic action may be needed to achieve that, and being action that would not pay respect to the shareholder's directors' vote. Obviously, the 2 new ones were presented by the "us" brigade. Perhaps they should be replaced by moderates, people who would be acceptable to all parties, also people with RNI/AUR experience and knowledge.​

6. So, let's take that a step further. Have a Chair and the 3rd non-exec D who are acceptable to both sides AND (and this is critical) have the interests of all shareholders and the company itself as their primary purpose in being on the Board. Keep Rob Martin as a non-exec D. He is a big holder, and deserves his position. He also obviously likes the company's prospects. I would put my hand up for one of the positions. I have criticised MF many a time here, and also on HOR, but I would respect his shareholding status and also his geological and business experience and knowledge.​