Hmm... Lets apply the 1% leeway rule to the Oct, 2015 numbers of...

Hmm...

Lets apply the 1% leeway rule to the Oct, 2015 numbers of 17.74% (129,824,874 shares).

Looking at it another way, what would be the total shares issued if AF's 129,824,874 shares held represented 16.74% (i.e. 17.74%, less 1% leeway) of total shares issued? Ans: ~775M total shares on issue.

The total shares issued for POS cracked through the 775M mark with the 3B of 06 April 2016 (788,110,919 total shares issued).

If, repeat, if AF's interests had made no further share purchases since Oct 2015, then 06 April 2016 would be the date at which his shareholding would have fallen below 16.74%, triggering the need for a 604.

He could have purchased those 10M shares now, to restore the shareholding to within the 1% rule, but without earlier purchases he would have been non-compliant since early April.

I'm not suggesting he hasn't made any purchases during that period, but I do think this shows that he would have needed to in order to remain compliant throughout the period.

Continuing to support through ongoing purchases, or non-compliant with the 604 reporting? I'm thinking the former, but I could be wrong...