I quote you here "we were told, type of terms that might be considered for an example is a share stake in the project without dilution to share holders. the project will then not be held 100 percent by the shareholders."
What rubbish are you being fed here then.?
Shareholders have 100% ownership now and it is proposed to deal in a money tree "investor" giving them what? 80% ownership? and contention is that does not dilute shareholders ownership! Was Grazien there as guest speaker?
Ann: Letter to Shareholders re EGM, page-32
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 9 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
