Ann: Becoming a substantial holder, page-6

The suggestion is that the 9m shares were transferred from nominee status where they could not be voted to an entity who is empowered to vote the shares at the rescheduled meeting.(see garyj’s posts)

Also, the trade condition code (P1XT) on three of the other large aftermarket trades on Tuesday could also be consistent with that kind of shuffling.

As I read it, the “P1” designation signifies a “put through” trade where shares are transferred from one nominee of a fund manager to another nominee of the same fund manager.

"P1" or "P2" condition code — Reporting of "Put Through" transactionsWhere a Trading Participant effects a Block Special Crossing in accordance with Procedure [4802]Part A paragraph 2 during all trading Session States other than the CSPA, System Maintenanceand Close Session States and where the Block Special Crossing results in the Cash MarketProducts the subject of the transaction being sold by a nominee that holds those Cash MarketProducts on behalf of a Funds Manager to another nominee that holds those Cash MarketProducts on behalf of the same Funds Manager (a "Put Through" for the purposes of thisProcedure [3500] Part A), the Trading Participant must immediately report the "Put Through"transaction to the Trading Platform in conjunction with the condition code — P1 for Cash MarketProducts other than Warrants or P2 for Warrants.

https://www.asx.com.au/documents/rules/Draft_ASX_Operating_Rules_procedures.pdf

In any case, the decline of the NTC sp from $1.09 to circa $1.065, the decline in volume and the absence of centre point trades all suggests that the arbitragers are no longer as confident that the scheme will be approved. Up until the blancmange hit the fan on Thursday last week, there were lots of trades going through at $1.0925. The buyers were evidently confident of picking up the 0.75 cent in short order. Now they are reluctant even with a 3.5 cent premium.

If perchance the scheme is defeated, it appears that NTC will have acquired some institutional shareholders, albeit that they might be unintended ones.

In that event, I wonder what the accidental institutional holders will think of the current board.
What rating would the allocate to the board's ability to organise a piss-up in brewery?

Cheers