reject resolution 1, page-11

Whether you think the underwiting and trading around the rights issue was unethical / unfair / dishonest, the fact is the company was running out of cash, and thus put themselves at the mercy of the limited parties who were willing to inject funds.

All existing holders had the opportunity to take up their rights, and they chose not to, irrespective of the trading pattern around this period.

That is the past now... Going forward there does not seem to be any value to be gained from rejecting resolution 1 as:

1. Patersons & related parties gained most of their holdings through the underwiting agreement, not the placement, therefore they will be allowed to vote on the resolution, likely making the fragmented minority who vote against the resolution irrelevant

2. If in the unlikely event that the resolution be voted against, all that is achieved is restricting the Company's ability to quickly (and cheaply) raise equity should they require - generally this is not an desired outcome, irrespective of whether you are satisfied with management's performance / alignment with brokers

3. Surely if Patersons & others are aiming to take a solid, set position in this company, they see an opportunity to creat value for themselves, and thus the others on the register. Whilst this may be insignificant in terms of your buy-in price, it is probably better than any alternative options, if any, that are currently on the table

I'm not an advocate for PSL or any other party, but I don't see the sense in constricting the options available to the Company and limiting the value to be created to investors out of a sense of revenge or stubborness towards the new investors and brokers.

The Company got itself in a vulnerable position, various parties eyed an opportunity, the brokers used their knowledge of the market to maximise their position. Like it or not, it's what they do.