top of page
  • cindybax

KASM takes complaint over seabed miner misleading Australia’s ASX

PRESS RELEASE


Kiwis Against Seabed Mining, Inc. (KASM) is lodging a complaint to the Australian Securities Investment Commission (ASIC) about the seabed mining company Tran Tasman Resources’ parent company Manuka Resources Ltd for misleading the ASX.


"That TTR's owner Manuka Resources yesterday exaggerated its relationship with the government in an announcement to the Australian Stock Exchange is nothing new: we were already in the process of complaining about another highly misleading announcement it made last month," said KASM chair Cindy Baxter.

 

Yesterday the company's Australian owner, Manuka Resources Ltd, in a statement to the ASX, made much of being "formally invited" by the government to apply to get on the fast-track bill's schedule of projects, but it turns out the "invitation" was a form letter sent to over 200 companies.

 

"This company has been misleading the ASX for months, as it touts for investors," said KASM Chair Cindy Baxter. "On 28 March it told the ASX it had 'EPA environmental consents and conditions to operate approved in 2017' for its South Taranaki Bight seabed mining plans, but the company did not mention that this so-called approval has been quashed by the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.  This company has no consent, full stop."

 

On the basis of that statement, KASM has begun the process of taking a complaint to the Australian Securities Investment Commission (ASIC), first writing to the company to ask it to correct the misleading statement."This company has repeatedly  downplayed the Supreme Court decision against its EPA approval. Nowhere on its website does it inform investors that its consent was quashed by three courts.


“This is one of our major concerns about the Fast-Track legislation: that any expert panel will not be able to properly investigate exaggerated claims like TTR is making, and allow flawed projects across the line. Without transparency and expertise brought by civil society and other groups, these kinds of claims will not be exposed, and relevant evidence will not be presented. The one-sided process would be a highway to environmental destruction.” 

227 views0 comments

Comentários


bottom of page