absolute disgrace!!, page-19

Going back to earlier posts, I guess we will have to wait and see regarding the "legality" issue raised by Pear. My advice is that a company can offer options or shares to whomever they wish at whatever price, providing it has shareholder approval. Whether or not they were former option holders is immaterial. Indeed there have been cases where former options holders have received replacement or "renewed" options, at no additional cost at all, after exercise dates have lapsed.

Legality is not the issue at all, the real issues are how badly does the company need the money, can it get it somewhere else cheaper, what is appropriate future remuneration for management (some of whom held the previous unlisted options) and does the company want to encourage the takeup of future option placements by encouraging the perception that the options (may) be extended should the shares fail to reach the exercise price by the exercise date at some point in the future.
I think it is reasonable for management to address these concerns when you are asked to vote on it.

The only tricky legal action that may arise is from those who bought into the options at the last minute because they thought that they would be offered the new options,(but only if the company changed its mind and did not seek shareholder approval for the new options issue, which was a condition to the offer.)

Ps I make no judgements here, I hedged my bets, sold half of my options and kept half. If I was to take a guess, I think that many GBZ holders are also CDU holders. With CDU's announcement this morning to delay, once again, their jorc until late August / September, cash will be at a premium and takeup of the new options by many, even if offered at 1c, may not be guaranteed particularly given the latest drilling results and continued global uncertainty.