above is page 67 from this years annual report...
note that the top 7 shareholders are brooks related but only one,
baracus, is listed as a substantial shareholder.
in the previous annual report, shown below,
all 4 of the brooks related accounts were listed as substantial shareholders even though only two of them exceeded 5% of tmb shares on issue.
my question to shareholders is...has there been a change of rules since 2022 or did
tmb erroneously list those 2022 accounts below 5% as substantial shareholders.
if in fact there is only a need to treat those accounts that appear on the above
substantial shareholders list as such, subject to notice requirements, then it appears that other baracus and rita brooks accounts have been included as two accounts each with the
effect (but not necessarily intent) that these accounts are not subject to substantial holders requirements.
the following comments apply if... in the latest annual report there is only one legally defined substantial holder, namely baracus, with 17.76%
(1): of the 3 baracus accounts 2 of them could be traded without triggering the requirement for substantial holder notice, provided the account holding did not exceed 5%..
(2): likewise the two rita brooks superanuation accounts could be traded without triggering the requirement.
(3): this would give a total of about 13.5% of the companes shares (about 11.2 million shares), or half of the shares controlled by brooks related accounts that could be traded without the requirement for a
change in substantial holding notice.2022 annual report below
