Ann: Quarterly Activities/Appendix 4C Cash Flow Report, page-74

This post is on the correct thread as it relates to the quarterly and the capital raise notification their in.
This post is my opinion and I am interpreting recent actions with reasonable understanding I have.

Hi JBT
Mate, I agree and think many companies are running a very fine line, as AUZ is finding out.

Here is a question for you, do you know the legalities surrounding this scenario

Scenario 1
There is a 10% allowance for capital raising baked into the company governance, this is accepted as matter of fact. Legal fact.

Scenario 2
Then there is the 15% extra capital raising allocation that can be applied for annually, this has been approved by shareholders in the case of AUZ, We accept this as approved allocation to CR. Legal fact.

Scenario 3
Then there is the additional 15% raising of capital that is approved by shareholders annually as capital raising funding, ACCOMPANIED BY
Equivalent 1 for 1 free options of an equal number at a $0.00 value, these options have a pre-valued strike price of say +-$0.13c, to sweeten the deal for enticement to engage.
So the additional free $0.00 options actually have capital raise value at some point in the future of 0.13c each.
If 1 million options are redeemed, the company got an extra UNAPROVED capital raising value of $130k in the capital raise through pre determined intent. The numbers of shares and value are of substantially larger # $ quantity that outlined in this example.
The converted options /shares dilutionary effect is DOUBLE the capital raise value to that approved capital raise transaction.
The capital raised is potentially longer term more than double the approved 15% value that was approved due to the increased option strike price over the original capital raise price.

The way I see this is that although the company has permission from shareholders to raise 15% maximum, the company through the interpretation of extra options having a $0.00 value at the time of capital raising is placing an additional NON approved dilutionary facility with delayed intent to raise additional funding over and above that 15% that was approved IN THE SAME CAPITAL RAISE TRANSACTION.
The intent is transparently actually extra capital raise capacity over and above the 15% agreed to by shareholders in the same CR transaction, and more importantly is illegal in accordance with the 15% capital raise intent that was voted by shareholders. This is in my opinion.

IS THIS LEGAL, if it is it makes a mockery of the rules.
RED