Q: Why Change Anson’s Board?

  • We support Anson's assets

  • We support management

  • We support the technical direction

However, the Board does not have the engineering and commerical capability to develop the Company's resources. This phase will be determined by managing risk, progressing development certainty, commercial execution, financing, strategic partnerships and capital allocation - not further exploration. Decision making is dominated by Mr Richardson as CEO and Chairman. None of the directors have successfully developed a resource project so they do not know what is required. The time and money spent on $50m raised for Paradox with no disclosure shows poor development risk management and lack of accountability. Shareholders have been very patient. This Board has had enough time. We now need change.

All directors are employees of the Company. So there is no management oversight and directors’ remuneration is excessive. Directors are very well paid despite slow progress. Shareholders bear the risk of delays and dilutionary capital raises. Directors propose share grants on milestones which have not yet added to shareholder wealth. Directors profit while shareholders do not. The low share price tells the story.

A: Shareholders must be treated as owners and Anson needs added capability to develop its assets

  • Management held to account by the Board

  • Remuneration reset — reduce cash burn, align share grants with shareholders’ interests

  • Development-stage leadership, not exploration-stage leadership

  • Financing and partnership execution capability

  • Formulate a plan and a coherent equity story and communicate transparently - milestones and progress - to keep shareholders informed

80% + share price decline since 2022 peak

Two-strikes against
remuneration

27% vote for spill with no directors on the ballot

The Board waited until after the EGM had been called to commission a remuneration review. They propose salary reductions offset by share allocations, with no change in total remuneration.
Are the Board serving shareholders or serving themselves? We need to change these directors.

Late, inadequate, self-serving

Preserve technical capability
Our proposal preserves Mr Richardson as CEO. Technical leadership, operations and key relationships (POSCO, LG Energy Solution, government engagement) stay in place.

Protect shareholder capital
Every dollar matters in a pre-revenue company. We will apply a capital allocation framework with one test: will this maximise shareholder value?

Add commercial capability
Assets create value only when successfully financed, commercialised and delivered. That requires engineering and commercial capability the current Board doesn't have.

Improve governance
Separating the Chairman and CEO roles — unaddressed since 2018 — and an independent Remuneration Committee restore basic oversight.

Our interests are directly aligned with every other shareholder. Our performance rights vest only if the share price reaches A$0.125, A$0.20 or A$0.40— 2.5x, 4x and 8x a share price of 5c. We receive nothing below those thresholds