dispatch of notice of meeting and explanatory , page-5

I'm with U refinedsilver and i'll be voting no also.
Unfortunately our holdings are so small they probably wont even register a raised eyebrow in the voting process.
I just love the fact that the directors will get 35000000 shares @ 0.1c for their trouble.
When/if the comapny relists under its new name guaranteed to ensure its success and the co starts tradinf again @ 1c they have a 10 bagger minimum for their trouble with the promise of more to come if they can stretch things out.
In a perverse way I hope they do get the co going and the silver price does collapse ( as I am expecting ) so that their little deal doesnt make them any money.
I've seen this type of thing a few times in my experience wht investing.
Share reconstruction - leaves exiting shareholders with next to nothing.
New shares issued further dilutes your holding
Company name change so that new suckers can be enticed without the old company name stigma attached - we have such short memories.
By the time they go through their plans to ensure the mine is feasible and optimised for production and pay thjeir acquaintances fees for their services thye mya have enough money to keep going for 6-12 months if they are conservative, then back to the market for another capiatl raising, more dilution and so on and so onWhen the co was suspended it was a working mine producing silver so why do the new boys have to reinvent the wheel by seeing if production is viable?
I urge all shareholders to vote against all proposals and send a clear message of disgust in such a poor proposal
The administrators have driven far from a hard bargain for a operational producing silver mine with a 55m oz resource
I have one other company holding that has gone through the same process and after 5 years my holding is worth about 0.01% of its original value.
People I kissed my money goodbye a long time ago I suggest everyone do the same.