4 questions lodged at 2025 Spartan Resources scheme meeting
July 11, 2025
Below is the text of the 4 written questions submitted at the 20 minute Spartan Resources (SPR) hybrid scheme meeting held at 10am in Perth on July 11, 2025 via the Automic/Zoom platform. Voted in favour of $5 billion merger with Ramelius Resources by proxy on July 1, rewarding Spartan's decision to hold a hybrid meeting. Sadly, was the only shareholder asking questions. See notice of meeting. Market cap $2.45 billion on scheme meeting day. No early disclosure of the proxies in these formal addresses lodged 3 hours before the meeting started. Final poll results showed strong support from 96.3% of voted stock and 90.3% of voting shareholders.
Q1. Why did we opt to use the WA Supreme Court when the NSW Supreme Court is regarded as the best in the country for managing these sorts of scheme agreements? Did we consider using NSW and how have we found the WA Supreme Court to deal with?
Answer: The chair Simon Lawson deferred to non-executive director and practicing corporate lawyer Deanna Carpenter who said the WA Supreme Court was very experienced and well equipped to deal with such schemes. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q2. How much will our financial adviser Euroz Hartley be paid in total once this deal completes and does the chair believe this represents good value for money? Did we run a tender process for this job or was it the Perth corporate network in action? What is our history with Euroz Hartley? Is their upcoming EGM to approve a large capital return ($23m) partly being funded by the success fee on this deal?
Answer: Botched this question as Euroz is advising Ramelius and fellow local Perth shop Steinpress Advisory looked after Spartan under what CFO Tejal Magan said was a longstanding mandate dating back to tougher times. Sadly, chair Simon Lawson went with the old "look it up in the scheme book" answer, rather than producing any actual numbers. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q3. How many shareholders voted by proxy and what sort of proxy solicitation campaign did we run? Why didn't we disclose the proxies to the ASX along with the formal addresses?
Answer: CFO Tejal Magan wrangled all of the questions and partly answered this one saying that Sodali did the proxy solicitation campaign, which wasn't too effective given they've got almost 7,000 shareholders. Chair Simon Lawson confused proxy vote disclosure with proxy adviser recommendation disclosure and no response was provided as to why the proxy position wasn't disclosed along with these formal addresses 3 hours before the meeting began. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q4. Were you happy with the headcount turnout of 337 for and against votes on the proxies? How many shareholders were entitled to vote?
Answer: Not asked although this was lodged in the Zoom Q&A box after the Q&A session had finished because proxy vote disclosure had also been delayed until after the Q&A session. Watch how the 20 minute meeting ended with the usual Zoom explosion when this question still could have been asked.
Copyright © 2025 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved
