re your comment
"What can the logic be for waiving the requirement for a Yes vote on the SoA by 50% of shareholders by number voting because of COVID-19?"
I was kind of wondering to myself (before your comment): I wonder if there exists some "unusual, horse trading" we will never know about to obtain Westoz's 'yes' vote. It seems Westoz has the power to vote UP the scheme or vote DOWN the scheme - on share holding, but not for shareholder NUMBER: they are only ONE VOTE.
I and my independent family members hold much less than 12% of the shares, but much more than ONE VOTE. What if there are a lot of mum and pop holders that hold, say $10k or so shares. And they are happy to vote 'no', and lose 10% in six months, to pick up 100% in three years.
Or perhaps there are a lot of current non share holders, but wise readers of the GT report, that can see
"wait a minute, the valuation is based on many worst case scenarios, but we think Zenith has the sort of future that Zenith directors have been touting; we BELIEVE the Zenith directors and what they said in the recent half yearly; and how they said they convert so much of opportunity; and we see Zenith came onto the ASX with 200 MW in prospects and signed 100 MW of that in just over a year; they signed 50% of prospect MW; we believe Zenith can keep doing what they did and said they will do; we can see the $1.01 is really light; so we will do this...:"
"...We will spend a couple thousand dollars and buy a vote. And we will vote NO. But if the vote passes, we still get $1.05 (count franking). And if the vote fails, we will then put in more $ when the share falls to 90 cents. And heck, if it passes, we take 88 cents we get a capital loss to carry forward as well. What a bargain and opportunity!"
Southern, maybe that is why the Cabal may want to ask the court and ASIC to set aside their rules. For the Cabal.
Expand
