Ann: ASX Approval Letter and Terms of ASX Waivers, page-116

I respect most posts you make, but this is getting childish.

From Neil:

https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-asx-approval-letter-and-terms-of-asx-waivers.4603447/page-60?post_id=37119685

"No shares are being offered to anyone at 2c".

From The ASX Waiver:

(B) (i) "the issue price of the Capital Raising Shares is at least $0.035 per share"

(B) (iii) "the Company's Shareholders approve the issue price of the Capital Raising Shares in conjunction with the approval obtained under Listing Rule 11.1.2 in respect of the Acquisitions"

Listing Rule 11.1.2 refers to obtaining shareholders approval at a valid meeting - check.

(B) (iv) "the terms of the Acquisitions and Capital Raising Offer have not materially changed (as determined by ASX in its absolute discretion) from those announced by the company on 16 August 2018"

(D) (viii) "Up to 12,500,000 Shares at an issue price $0.035 per Share and 6,250,000 free attachingOptions to Sholom Feldman"

(D) (ix) "Up to 12,500,000 Shares at an issue price $0.035 per Share and 6,250,000 free attachingOptions to Pnina Feldman"

So let's just get all of this commentary/prior history surrounding the CR straight.

Neil has said there are no shares being issued at 2.0c - effectively declaring that that is a typo/wrong in the document.

QBL have released a prospectus (or 9) that state 3.5c per share CR.

Every participant shareholder has completed their CR paperwork based on 3.5c.

The last roughly 6 months has had uniform reference to 3.5c aside from this sole 2.0c erroneous item.

The waiver in itself would not allow 2.0c issue as per (D) through the counteraction of items at (B) noting 3.5c minimum for share CR price.

The directors at (D) (viii) + (ix) have specifically been included as participants in the CR, but not only that have stipulated 3.5c as well as their CR participation price.

Shareholders approved the CR at 3.5c via the AGM/EGM, whichever one it was referred to.

This 'viewpoint' let's call it, is therefore claiming that shares can be issued or have been intended to be issued (as a result of this soletypo/wrong figure) in complete opposition to:

(a) Neils communication following BOD discussion/reference;

(b) the ASX waiver stipulating at least 3.5c/share as per (B) (i)

(c) Shareholder approved price at 3.5c/share as per (B) (iii)

(d) the stipulation that there be no material change (which I think this would be!) in the CR price as per (B) (iv)

(e) The directors specifically stipulating their CR issue price is 3.5c per (D)(viii)+(ix)

Amazing - the directors in conjunction with the ASX but WITHOUT shareholder approval can just change the CR price. Yet the directors themselves still stipulate 3.5c CR price per share they subscribe for (way to protect your interests guys). And on top of this, everyone's CR applications were incorrect as they stated 3.5c & is therefore invalidated - we have to re-do the full CR!

No, I don't think so.

I can see why you want a specific release saying this was an error. I truly can. But effectively Neil has already declared that the statement is incorrect. Highly doubt he'd make that comment if it was also incorrect. I'll screenshot it & keep for the "just in case" argument you're putting forward so I can put together a legal action if needed later.. but we know it won't be necessary as the company is governed by ASX rules in public communications & that would be misleading/illegal to make such a statement when knowingly wrong. Don't think Neil would want that on his plate.

There's nothing specific saying they've gone to ASX to get rectification on wording as you've said - correct, but there's also nothing to say they have not. Could pop up tomorrow with the amendment for all we know (humor me on the timeline here, I don't want the 24 hour later response saying 'no we don't have it yet').

It's innocent before proven guilty & I always come back to this. I guess many are beyond benefit of the doubt with history. I get that, but there's fresh blood on board now too..

More than happy to debate the real items - financials, operations etc , but that's closing the chapter on this issue for me. And hopefully the snowball stops rolling..