Class Action Lawsuit...Contacting Lawyers This Week, page-40

I was simply expressing an opinion of how a fair and equitable legal system "should" work.

And that is, in my humble opinion, if the directors and creditors are not able to reach a recapitalization agreement, then shareholders should be given a certain time period to offer up recapitalization capital, and if successful, thereby preventing the company from going into administration.

IMHO, this is how a "fair and reasonable" system under the law "should" work, though apparently in reality, as we have seen, it does not work this way.

The crux of the case is this, if shareholders are given the information by directors and creditors that a recapitalization proposal cannot be agreed to by those parties, then shareholders should be provided with a "fair and reasonable" time period to come up with the capital.

This option was clearly not afforded shareholders in this case !

And because it was not, does that bring into question the legal definition of "fair and reasonable", in respects of affording shareholders the "option or right" to raise the capital required to prevent the company from going into administration.

I'm not a lawyer, but if I was going to contest the case, this is the line that I would be pursing, and as such, I would be searching through the statutes for a precedent, or similar situation, where the appropriate "fair and reasonable" clause may have been tested.

PS: There are no grounds for moderating this post, because I am just expressing a personal opinion, nothing more.

Gw