agm recap

Thanks Buddy, the moderator has me on day release from Pentridge.

Rincon had to go that is it.

Everybody was very dejected but to get this project to the next stage needed dollars $100 mill. and even then they can't guarantee a market because we are a future product market. Also Car manufacturers have cut back R & D dollars meaning hybrids electric cars in volume may be some time off. They apparently canvassed all available buyers including using three brokers. PT said ( how much he actually did we will never know). Anyway its old news so move on everybody from rincon. We would have gone in bankrupcty if this didn't proceed no doubts about it. even the chairman Harper had checked to see if the receivers were arriving that day during the AGM.

The board was asked the big question from me. EG who has a direct and indirect interest in Hawkswood Charge ect. why all parties were using the same lawyers hall Wilcox , chinese walls etc etc . they all said no. PT sqirmed like a Kebab on a spit roast.


The board had said if a deal was done for the I/O business instead they would have sold that instead.


However for everyone sake these issues remain.

1.There was no guarantee after spending $100 million on Rincon that we would have hit the money so far as customers, sales and a successful business going forward. the whole project ran on possibilities not fact.

2. The I/O was a producing business with production problems but can rectified into a substantial business. we needed to increase our resource size and expand mining production. Jon Anderson said they would canvass buyers outside the asian market.

John also said he did not feel our existing production operation was up to scatch in his opinion.( PT squirmed more).

3. For the record the topic of continued misdisclosures was raised. PT argument was that he had to disclose potential events due to ASX listing rules. Fair enough.

But why did he leave disclosure of failed shougang finance etc contracts, notification of failed take up aggreements till last notice.

4. a Class action. directors are personally liable here. Its takes plenty of cash to run a case(legal fees). then if successful we have to get cash the directors or the company if they had any. There is a long time frame to be successful say 12mths to years.

4b. . Finally some law firms will do it on a success fee. which is quite handsome. but hit you for a minimum fee say $825 like the one initiated by investors for Great Southern Limited the other day to get started.

The summary. class actions against companies with cash is good. OZL is a good choice, James hardie good choice. Qantas price fixing good choice. ADY going broke. make your own assertions here.

we will be hammering moralty issues and probably still end up with empty pockets.

from my experience we would have a good case. the body of mis-information apparently more than amounted to Ramping by PT( mis-representation, deceptive and misleading conduct). However logic would dictate in any court room he would use the Credit crunch to justify failure

We all know this is a failure of prudential financial management. To have foolishly ignored the warning signs of the coming credit cycle issues which has been happening for over 12 months prior to July 2008 is disgraceful.