.. and just to conclude....

ty for the vote!

.. just to conclude...maybe it's just me but if I am told glibly in a Document supporting a Call that a company owns 5% of Bigrlyi then that should be the case. Full stop.

Silly expectation I suppose.

I was personally well aware of the dispute so no drama there, but it is the Omission itself that staggered me.

If there is some current dispute over that ownership, then I expect that, in all Honesty, it should be stated very clearly at that particular time, and not excluded deliberately. It is correct operating, rather than being in any rule book perhaps.

I say it was no accident that it was omitted because these guys are professionals and would have taken a definite decision not to mention it. There is no "oops forgot to mention it .. " about it at all.

So I am disappointed, dismayed and surprised... and disgusted too.

It kinda smells.. like the prawn heads in my bin from last night. Phew!!

Both companies have very obviously been instructed to make a detailed clarifying statement to shareholders in their next Reports which they have now done. Good. Score points for "the regulator". So they jolly well should have been told.

Apparently it doesn't worry other shareholders...

I guess it is really a Small thing, a nuisance to regulators even?.. but the principle is BIG! and let me say it actually quite got to me! .. and as a lesson in permitted behaviour and ethics it has given me a sharp lesson in Trust and what to really expect from the sharemarket... well some folk anyway. :)

Luckily it didn't cost me anything but what I gained in insight into what people can do could save me big dollars later on and for that I am humbly grateful of course. !

At least I retain my great sense of humour! We all should... :))