$AUMAS (0098.MY)$ The Board of Directors of AuMAS wishes to ...

$AUMAS (0098.MY)$
The Board of Directors of AuMAS wishes to inform that the Company wishes to announce the following additional information:

1. Impact of Sub Lease Agreement Termination

At the date of this response, there is no court order terminating the Sub-Lease Agreement. The Sub-Lease Agreement remains valid and enforceable, and WRSB continues its mining operations in the ordinary course.

If the Court were to grant an order terminating the Sub-Lease Agreement, the operational impact on WRSB would depend on the scope, timing and terms of such order, including any stay, transitional arrangements or regulatory directions that may be imposed. As the legal proceedings are ongoing, the Company is unable to determine or quantify the operational impact at this stage.

It should be noted that on 4 December 2023, the High Court of Sabah and Sarawak at Sandakan granted an inter partes injunction against the Plaintiff in Civil Suit No. SDK-22NCvC-11-6/2023, which remains in force. Pursuant to the injunction, the Plaintiff is restrained, inter alia, from hindering WRSB’s operations, including WRSB’s use and enjoyment of the land under the Sub-Lease Agreement and the use of facilities constructed for its operations, pending the disposal of the action.

The Company has been advised by its legal advisors that it has a strong legal basis to defend and resist the claims.

2. Impact of EIA Report and Approval Invalidation

At present, the EIA report and approval remain valid and operative, and WRSB continues to conduct its mining activities under the existing regulatory framework.

If the Court were to grant a declaration affecting WRSB’s ability to rely on the EIA approval, the impact on mining activities would depend on the nature and terms of such order, including any directions from the relevant regulatory authorities and the availability of alternative, remedial or transitional approvals. Accordingly, the Company is unable to determine or quantify the impact at this stage.

No regulatory authority has revoked, suspended or cancelled the EIA approval, and no court order has been made declaring the EIA approval invalid or restraining its use by WRSB as at the date of this response.

The Company has been advised by its legal advisors that it has a strong legal basis to defend and resist the claims.

3. Financial and Operational Impact if Both Items 1 and 2 Occur

Items 1 and 2 above relate to reliefs sought by the Plaintiff which are contested and remain subject to ongoing legal proceedings. The Company has been advised by its legal advisors that it has a strong legal basis to defend and resist the claims.

If the Court were to grant both the termination of the Sub-Lease Agreement and an order affecting WRSB’s reliance on the EIA approval, the financial and operational impact on the Group would depend on the scope, timing and terms of such orders, including whether any stay, phased implementation or regulatory directions are imposed.

As the proceedings are ongoing and no such orders have been made, the Company is unable to determine or quantify any financial impact at this stage and does not expect any immediate disruption to its operations.

4. Clarification Regarding the RM96 Million Mentioned in the Announcement

The RM96 million represents the total consideration paid to the Plaintiff in connection with the acquisition of the entire equity interest in WRSB during the financial year ended 31 March 2017. As WRSB had limited activities at the time other than holding mineral rights, the transaction was accordingly accounted for as the purchase of individual assets.

The Cost of Investment in WRSB referred to in our announcement made on 19 December 2025 represents the paid-up share capital of WRSB.

This announcement is dated 31 December 2025.