Share
13,732 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 132
clock Created with Sketch.
14/07/14
16:54
Share
Originally posted by SuperTim
↑
Snagger,
Agree 100%, if im not mistaken the previous directors signed off on the May prospectus and as such have 'responsibilities' as directors of a publicly listed company. Whether anyone else apart from the super CFO knew of the hole in the accounts is irrelevant, they were directing the ship and ultimately responsible.
I have no idea if there's enough there for any legal challenge (i know many legal firms baulked at taking up a shareholder challenge to PDY's false announcement of securing "$6.5billion in finance" when it was actually false)
It would be unimaginable putting any more $$$ in when the previous guys put us here and the company has no credibility whatsoever (although the 'new' guys is a positive) it looks like the big end of town and Paterson's are getting a big chunk for peanuts.
On the dilution, there's no way they will get a 9:1 anywhere near fully subscribed, so if they get the minimum amount raised ($16.5m) then the chairman has 3 months from the closing date to shop the remainder to any 'non-holders' interested @1c.
After that i'd say a 1:10 consolidation will be announced.
Anyway i've essentially written it off and IF a successful raise occurs anything i can get out of it in 3-4 years time i will treat as a bonus.
Expand
Isn't there a loop hole for PLV, I.e the change in management between the first capital raising and the second one?
PLV can claim the directors were removed due to over sight and new directors acted in the best interest of PLV and shareholders.
CK