interesting interpretations, page-63

Buddy,

Sure Buddy, thats true. But Jantimot tells us that the agreement wasn't an MOU at all despite what the company announcement says. He tells us that its a separate share purchase agreement but no evidiece of this seems to exist. He also tells us that this other supposed agreement (not the MOU) is binding and that it is "Subject only to FIRB and s/h approval" but we know that this bit was fabricated and not actually what the company said in the announcement that he otherwise quotes. Without any evidence to support any of these statements he concludes that OW are "in breach of contract" without him actually knowing what is written in the contract. Can you see the problem ?

So I ask, in the absense of any evidence to support any of these claims how is it that Jantimot can keep claiming that his statements are correct and that its all so "clear" ?

The entire purpose of me starting this thread wasn't for me to tell everybody what the facts are because I believe the situation is still very unclear, but rather to demonstrate how big a difference there is between what the company actually said and what some would have you believe via their own special interpretations. I did this only by providing reference to the companies own announcements and didn't feel the need to make make stuff up as some did.

You will note that few if any of these peoples' interpretations and related claims are supported by factual evidence. They are almost exclusively based on speculation but almost always accompanied by claims that its all very "clear". Have a look back and see how many times you see this word pop up in this thread. If it was all so "clear" then surely categorical evidence would be forthcoming but alas it has not been.

Don't mistake my posts as an attempt to argue a case either way as that is not its purpose. I think there are still many unanswered questions as one would expect during confidential negotiations. I'm just pointing out statements which would appear to be misinformation or wild speculation based on no actual evidence. I simply asked Jantimot to substantiate his claims but what we got instead was more supposition and worse still, fabrication. I'm sure you will agree that concocted evidence isn't real evidence at all.

Sadly James thinks that fabricated evidence is perfectly acceptable and has this morning chosen to reiterate the fabricated version of the companies comments originally put forward by Jantimot. James appears to be undaunted by the fact that this statement delivered to us by Jantimot has been modified from its original meaning in a material sense. He suggests that Jantimots "makes a very good point" untroubled by the fact that some of the statements are just made up. I don't pretend to have all the answers but I'm a little uncomfortable with this.

Just to cap this off I should make mention of the latest conclusion put forward by Jantimot which some including James appear to be convinved by. In attempting to support his previous statement that the terms of the agreement were binding Jantimot now pushes the question "Why would the company get you all to vote on something that might not happen". I find this question interesting considering in that same post Jantimot quotes selected sections from the EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM in the Notice of Meeting, the purpose of which was solely to explain such things.

The answer to Jantimots question appears to be quite simple. The company could not legally issue that quantity of stock to OW or anybody else without shareholder approval, irrespective of what conditions may or may not have been in any agreement. It would be a breach of the corporations act to issue more than 15% without shareholder approval and the company had already made prior placements which when added to this intended placement would push them over the limit. The company had no choice but to ask shareholders to vote if it wanted to proceed. That bit is obvious and I find it odd that Jantimot would not know this. Share investing 101 isn't it ?

Moreover if this fact was too obscure the company specifically told us in that same explanatory memorandum that it sought approval from shareholders in relation to the ratification of the prior issue to OW so that it "will have the effect of refreshing the Company’s 15% limit for new issues of securities under the Listing Rules". The company didn't have to seek approval for all 3 issues but since it needed to ask for permission for 1 of them and a vote was therefore required they simply decided upon "refreshing the Company’s 15% limit" by putting forward all three resolutions and cleared the decks in a single meeting.

Speculation is pointless if it ignores the known facts. The company openly advised why it sought shareholder approval. It wasn't hidden in some obscure document but in fact was written in the very same document that Janimot quotes from. Interestingly none of this is mentioned in this most recent supposition. One needs to wonder how you can read an announcement, pull out quotes and completely fail to see everything else that was written.

I'm now done with this conversation. I don't need more speculation, supposition or modified interpretations. People can and should believe what they want but I've done my bit to question statements appear to be baseless.