@vontrader As I had posted before, ABG and the landowners are...

@vontrader

As I had posted before, ABG and the landowners are “token shareholders” of BCL. They do not have the ability to decide or trade on the shares they supposedly own

Someone else votes for those shares in Stockholders meetings. I can’t say who actually voted Mel Togolo as Chair of BCL. Its definitely not ABG. Same thing with the landowners 17% shareholdings. Nobody in ABG knows who exercises the proxies for those shares.

Such disconnect is exactly why ABG treats BCL as totally disassociated from itself. Thats why ABG can reject a company it supposedly owns, and why a company it supposedly owns files a case against ABG.

ABG can’t wind BCL up because they control nothing. The alleged transfer of shares of BCL is a sham, as far as ABG is concerned. Whats the benefit of alleged ownership if you can’t even control/vote your own shares?

If ABG had any say in how their shares were voted, they would have put VP Masono or Minister Wilson or anyone from the BEC to represent ABG on the Board. And the landowners would have voted one of their one on the Board, as mandated in the ABG Mining Act. BCL did nominate a landowner to a seat last time around. But that did not materialise.

This lack of control and transparency is exactly the type of deal that the ABG does not want.

Andesite, I believe that there are announced changes in the alleged stock ownership. I will try to trace the pronouncements on such