re: Ann: PXU: Change in substantial holding f... As I said three...

re: Ann: PXU: Change in substantial holding f...
As I said three days ago: "What firsova seems to forget is there is a market in PXU and they still have a priority and most telling is that no PPX is going to receive a dividend until PXU get the specified outstanding interest, so why change to PPX at these metrics."

Further it would be terrific for PXU if Coastal converted as they then would have a big incentive to get the company going and their stock may overhang the market improving the default convertability of the PPX remaining. The PPX remaining would still enjoy priority, with fewer of them to split the spoils and what firsova calls a debt instrument that on paper at present converts not at 250 to 1 but some 2500 to 1.

Oh yes, the company has a problem and Coastal should not even think about a side-deal, while a legal colleague tells me a 'just and equitable' winding-up of the company may be able to be brought by the PPX holders (Coastal to perhaps spearhead?) as contingent or prospective creditors or even as contributories. Amazing what you can find in the Corporations Act - he tells me this is found in section 461(1)(k) and section 462(2)(b) and (c).