|The Minera leadership never really had a choice but to hold the course they had been on - if the claims of corruption were not true, they would feel deserving of retaining their positions (notwithstanding their lack of performance) and, if the claims were true, they would need to maintain full control of the company to prevent full disclosure and associated liability that would befall them.|
It's doubtful that any serious internal review ever took place - leadership would have known the truth of the corruption claims as soon as they were made many months ago. The fact that the company has not issued a denial or engaged an independent forensic audit makes it clear that the Board is working together to keep things from being fully exposed. They may at a future point issue some sort of denial, but I expect it would be vague and unsatisfactory to shareholders.
Interesting to note that the 'new' corporate presentation is devoid of any meaningful plan to get Ollachea into production or any deliverables on which management could be measured.
As for the election of Mr. Mount to the Board, while his mining experience is certainly a benefit (especially to a board with so little), I saw nothing in terms of mine development, leadership or Board experience that would make him the kind of person the company needs right now, and, there is too much risk that he will just become a confederate of existing leadership. I would also be skeptical of any promises he may make prior to being elected - he can say anything at that stage but be under no obligation to deliver since he would be only one vote on the Board.
Obviously, the problem with voting down the three directors on the slate is that it still leaves three existing. If Rio cannot be persuaded to step-up-to-the-plate (as in forcing management to perform an independent forensic audit and the changes needed to get Ollachea into production), then I think the best option for CS voting is to vote against all 5 resolutions - this is a risky proposition but would force real action.