TLDR - page 26 as per footer (actual page 27 in the PDF) - Vote...

TLDR - page 26 as per footer (actual page 27 in the PDF) - Vote "No" for everything.

I will be voting no - it is vultures feeding on a carcass - they are not here to help. They want you to ratify the theft of your own shares. I say let it burn/die and do not ratify anything that would make it seem you agreed with what has been done. I will be voting accordingly. I suggest you do the same.
This is the best approach. If they don't like it then they will come back with a better offer. What have you go to lose - zero or 0.000000000000000000001% of something which is zero anyway.

The transaction cost of selling your remaining holding will be more than its value after this.
By letting the company die/fold, at least you will get your tax deduction without having to fill out any forms or selling/transferring anything.

The guys are buying an ASX listed company for sweet FA - they are putting up the money and then having most of it reimbursed.

They have also embelished in the documents by claiming the company will go from debts of $11m to assets of $200K (nobody is doing anybody favours here ... the secure creditor released the debt because they took all of the assets of the company ... and maybe struck a deal with the previous directors, at least one of whom is still involved - https://www.linkedin.com/company/candy-club/people/)
1.6.1 The passing and consummation of Resolutions 1 to 3 and 7 as part of the recapitalisation
proposal would result in a net cash position of approximately $70,000 (assuming the capital
raising of the $200,000.00 referred to above) and having a company with no liabilities,
compared with the current position whereby the Company has no assets, and significant
debts of approximately $11million - if this statement had a smell, it woudl be most unpleasant

Somehow the secured US creditor got to take all of the company's assets ($10m+ of cash inventory and receivables) ... yet somehow the debt owed is still $11m and has been assigned to the new AU directors via a related entity - who will now extinguish it by taking 85% of the company after payng out a few thousand dollars in actual net cash - I say get farked and let it all burn

The real question I have is why the former CEO is still running the company and how (if at all, the former directors are still involved). I do not have proof ... yet, but I suspect the former directors have taken the company provate by striking a deal with the secured US lender. It would be nice to have a statement form the declaring they are no longer involved in any capacity.
The real value of the company could be acertained by having the sales data for the last 6 months of 2022 - I bet you it was good - that is why the company is still operating but we do not own it.