The 2 brothers controlled more than 55% of RDS upon listing !!...

The 2 brothers controlled more than 55% of RDS upon listing !!
Expenses to be paid upon listing made it urgent to raise new cap.already
late 2006/early 2007.
This is the reason why Prof.Groves and Mr.Olivero preferred a deal with BHP."(only f.RED ROCK)
Unfortunately voted down by A.Ailakis. We now know why.

This resulted in a cap.raising which included "TOLLU" without the company controlling the tenement.
This control was regained in november 2007 fr. TRAKA Resources.
Judges from both District Court and Supreme Court were shaking their heads when given this detail.
That is partly,why it was named a "commercial immorality.

The same thing repeat itself again w.RED ROCK in 2009.Mr.Ailakis forgot to renew the tenement.!!
Even though the 2 other directors desperately tried to get the tenement back,lawyers advise was not
to pursue this issue,they thought it was non recoverable.
And the board renewed his contract w. a salary increase in 2010. UNBELIEVABLE

Now we have a situation,where Mr.Ailakis have not applied f.POW's f.several years !
Who take responsibility? Mr.Homsany,as chairman,the board,comp.secretary or past directors ?

Mr.Bolanca is/was a director of Broadlake Resources.
He was also an employee of RDS untill end 2013.
His job was primarily to screen phone calls from irate shareholders and do daily odd jobs f.Mr. Ailakis.
This would also explain why the front door and the internal doors to RDS office was always locked
preventing shareholders access,while Mr.Ailakis could perform his daily control of RDS from his
office elsewhere in the building - out of sight.
Mr.Ailakis even had the luxury of using Mr.Bolanca during court trials,both in District Court and
Supreme Court. This was a trial not related to RDS.
We still do not know whether Mr.A.Ailakis was/is a director of Broadlake Resources.
He signed in as a director of Broadlake in Dept.of Mines while lodging a plaint!
Either he is a director and have failed to disclose this or he have signed a false statutory declaration!!
Both cases serious enough to lodge an investigation.
It blows the mind that ASIC have failed to take action of all the above plus much more.
This miserable story continues.