Are you and @Bayswaterguy aware the obligation to lodge the change in substantial holder documentation lies with the SUBSTANTIAL holder and that the company is the plaintiff in the court filing to clear themselves of wrongdoing because it IS NOT their responsibility to lodge it?
One would think they would have contacted first state to lodge the documents. But AGAIN they can't do it as it's on first state to lodge the holder change. They would have written requests to the holder to back up their position for same.
Also, the prior post trying to infer a link between a random HC post and T20 review is an absolute joke and unfounded. I can review a thousand posts and pull out an unfounded theory too. Scare tactic bells ringing all around.
No holding. No sentiment. Hmm.. interesting. Why don't we link that with posts and accuse any unsentimented non-holders of downramping*? I've got just as much basis imo..
* not actually accusing you of downramping, just making the point of how ridiculous an argument can be made from nothing.
