Ann: Change of Director's Interest Notice, page-78

Brett,

"The company has an independent analytical report indicating blatant manipulation by four funds and this has been handed to ASIC for investigation. "

Just because there is an "independent" (company claim, not proof of independence) report, does not make it so.
As I hold no shares in CDU, I could write an independent report on a lot of aspects about CDU, but it doesn't make it fact unless it went to court and was ''proven'' by a judge (that includes all appeals to when one party gives up, or full bench of the High Court makes a ruling).

Now in Cudeco's case, there is nothing stopping the company from taking it's own legal action against those that have done damage against it, just like it is taking action against the crusher supplier/installer, especially if they have ''proof'' of wrong doing.

So the real question on the report indicating blatant manipulation, is why the company didn't take it further?
I would suggest that those words are the real reason. "Indicating blatant manipulation", not proof of blatant manipulation. Perhaps you could raise it as a question at the AGM.

As Jantimot has stated, what you are saying about M&G could get you into big trouble with defamation unless you have proof they are doing it. A statement by Cudeco is certainly not proof!!