I know that as a holder, you wish to draw parallels with other companies.
However, no, even the WBC cap raise is not a situation similar to ours.
With the WBC situation, it affects how much the shares are bought and sold at. It does not affect who can sell.
With our situation, it affects who can sell.
As mentioned before, ASX are NOT LIABLE for issues relating to the SP. You can't sue ASX for your losses, even in the event of ASX negligence into enforcing disclosure, etc. However, ASX are FULLY LIABLE for issues relating to ownership of the shares traded on the ASX. If you buy a share on the ASX, and it just disappears (not go to 0, but disappears), you can pursue the ASX.
So ask yourself the question, are ASX liable for the WBC issue?
If WBC botched the cap raise by delivering more shares than the offer (i.e. they took 500m subscriptions, and then gave 700m) and did not immediately notice, then ASX would have a problem that they do not know who can sell. So they cannot take sell orders until they establish which of those 200m shares will disappear, and have a mechanism in place to not take those orders. The first thing they would ask WBC is "who got those extra 200m shares, and how many shares in total do these holders have?" so as to limit the orders that they can take from these holders until WBC sort out the issue of the 200m shares with the subscribers.
No... WBC did not do that. They had disclosure issues affecting the SP only.
ASX have no liability.
So they simply don't care... it's not their arse on the line.
I know many of you want to believe it's their job to protect investors and so on, but it's not.
It's their job to:
1. Match buyers and sellers.
2. Book a commission on this matching function.
The rest is just marketing fluff.
Expand
