Ann: Notice of Change of Interests of Substantial, page-11

re: Ann: Notice of Change of Interests of Sub... Hi Danube,

I appreciate your opinion but am somewhat lost in what the argument is that you're trying to make.

From what I can gather, assumptions being made in your speculation are:

1. A higher price justifies the deal and lower is bad - in fact I think quite the opposite. NTU rejected a similar deal because the share price went skywards over and above what was offered. ECE are mostly likely worried about the same thing happening to them so having the SP at around or below the offer price is good for them.

2. ECE won't care about the minor shareholders - potentially true, but am yet to see the evidence of this in their other acquisitions. We have all seen how Packer with a 20% interest can force change on the TEN board, I'm sure that ECE has already got quite a lot of influence over ARU with their 25% stake and ARU isn't exactly suffering. Likewise Weatherly International in the UK has been helped by the funding provided by ECE.


Not saying that I am pro-ECE, in fact I'd prefer if we got taken over rather than having this deal. However trying to draw comparisons with Microsoft Windows is a bit of a stretch.

What would be helpful is if someone could provide fact based feedback on:
1. What rights do minority shareholders have that would prevent a majority stakeholder (who's also a potential end user of the product) from making decisions that hurt company profitability (i.e. through mothballing or ridiculous pricing)? At this stage, the only things in our favour are transfer pricing and taxation laws (how funds are siphoned out of companies), ASIC regulations that directors should operate in the interests of their shareholders, and the Malawi government wanting to ensure the company maximises profit so that their cut of the pie is bigger.

2. Examples of deals by ECE, or similar Chinese entities, where the company has suffered greatly as a result of the investment.


Boff