Even if the AMP stake technically can vote to keep the fund...

Even if the AMP stake technically can vote to keep the fund going perhaps they are reconsidering whether this is appropriate that they do vote. I would expect the activist funds are tapping AMP on the shoulder and perhaps pointing out whether it is ethical given AMP gains a lot of fees from keeping this going. It may not look good for AMP if this gets clearly highlighted more in the media. Or has LIM already discovered they are not entitled to vote and hence the reason for requesting the wind up?

On the subject of getting the money back to unit holders I am not going to pretend I know about the regulations in China. What I would say is I wouldn't trust AMP if they are talking about the difficulties, they obviously have to try and best keep themselves in a job. My guess would be the likes of LIM and Wilson etc have probably done the work on this aspect, if it was too troublesome we probably wouldn't have this wind up proposal.