I'm not talking about turning down the offer. I'm talking about the actions of a Director who has never alleged that he played any role in bringing in rhe offer.
The consortium which approached ILA didn't include Chris. You've stated in this forum that the participants were scaled back to make room for Chris. Not one extra dollar was raised from Chris's participation. You've also stated in this forum that the participants had made it a condition of their offer that it be made available to nobody else. But somehow Chris became included.
The result was: * Chris was given free options which were worth 2.2c Black-Scholes value at the time they were granted (assuming 60% volatility, more if using a higher volatility) * Chris was given these options solely because he was a Director * Chis in effect received an totally unearned sign-on bonus * the Chair let him get away with this behaviour.
In my view Chris has clearly used his Director position to his own advantage. IMO no amount of "so what, the SP has gone up" excuses by the Chair can hide the plain fact that Chris has used his Director position to his own advantage and that the Chair let him do it.
Chris could and should have bought on market if he wanted to increase his holding from zero.
I'm not masochistic. So I'll be voting against Chris's participation in the placement and against his appointment as a Director.
A personalised tool to help users track selected stocks. Delivering real-time notifications on price updates, announcements, and performance stats on each to help make informed investment decisions.
(20min delay)