aet&d, page-97

Yes,

I agree, as many polite requests to ASIC as possible would be the way to go.

I think they are at least obligated to provide an independent assessment. Ironically I think this was a requirement for Alinta option holders during the original breakup which kicked the whole journey off (there may have even been an independent accountants report). Which may offer some direct precedence.

Anyway for ASIC:

Lack of communication.

Financial reports littered with market to market and non cash writedowns designed to maintain the companies zero net value status (which is fine from an accounting perspective but doesnt allow owners/option holders to assess the companies cashflow position or the relative state of individual assets). Impairments really need some explanation, especially when the assets have increasing revenues.

Concerns as to how the register has been adequatly maintained given the passage of time and lack of comunication. Which goes to the short notice of vote given and the ability of optionholders to adequately respond.

Concerns about a lack of transparency regarding related party transactions given Brookfield's move into infrastructure support and the lack of clarity surrounding what is happening to Westnet Infrastructure support services. I am not implying anything here I am just concerned about a lack of disclosure and communication. This extends to how AET&D1 and AET&D2 have formalised managing conflicting priorities between Brookfield and the option holders and the independence of the respective boards (I am simply just not aware how independent they are now).

Simply questions, not accusations some of which may have been answered in the documentation but I simply missed.