aaaaaaaaaaaaaand this is a great example of why so many retail...

aaaaaaaaaaaaaand this is a great example of why so many retail punters simply shouldn't be running their own money.

@Skronkman - I'll handle you more gently than I'd normally do, because you've acknowledged this isn't your domain.

@senderos, @Tradingday - don't blindly believe what others post on stock forums, especially when they expressly confess to a lack of expertise in the area.

@kenjikool - my dude, you sure have a lot to learn here. I say this with the best of intentions: go and look up what "confirmation bias" is because apropos PPK you. have. it. in. spades.

Now. I'll be as brief as I can.

PPK and PPKME were both sued by two Flynns (one human and one corporate; hereinafter jointly "Flynns") in the NSW Supreme Court. And in December 2022, PPK and PPKME won. Hurrah!

But. The Flynns appealed to the NSW Court of Appeal. And in August 2023 the Flynns won their appeal. Ruh-roh.

In September 2023 PPK and PPKME decided they would seek permission from the High Court to appeal against the adverse decision of the NSW Court of Appeal. And yesterday the High Court said "nah, soz, the decision of the NSW Court of Appeal is fine and it is final". And when the High Court turns you down, that's the end of the Australian litigation road. Has been since 1986, actually.

What happens now is that everyone trots back to the NSW Supreme Court to argue over exactly what the Flynns get now that they've won. When they sued in January 2019, they said the value of the PPK shares that they were meant to get but did not get, together with unpaid dividends on those shares, was between $4.4m and $6.4m. Not ideal, but PPK can handle that, right?

Aha, but here's the REALLY fun bit. Almost immediately after the Flynns sued, PPK's share price went on a tear. Within nine months, it was 6x what it had been when the Flynns sued. And a year or two after that, it hit $20 - ie 20x.

So if you're the Flynns, and it's 2024, and you now have a final, absolute, incontrovertible win, and the judiciary agrees that you should have in October 2016 received 3.44m PPK shares, do you go back to the Supreme Court and say "aw shucks the shares are now trading at 71c so I guess we're owed nearly $2.5m"? Ohhhh no. No you do not. What you do is you go back to the Supreme Court and say "we were true believers in PPK and there is no way we'd have sold at anything below $20 - but we had firmly decided that when the share price DID hit $20 we'd sell everything. So what PPK owes us is $68.8 million(plus divs!)".

Of course PPK will argue that the Flynns would have sold immediately upon receiving their shares. But what evidence will PPK have to make that claim? Probably nil. Whereas the Flynns will be swearing on the Bible and the Quran and the Torah and a bunch of golden plates found on an American mountain side that $20 was their number. And so the court will land somewhere between $4m and say $70m. Probably towards the lower end, but, you never know.

This decision absolutely, positively, assuredly, has the ability to wholly destroy PPK. As in, make PPK insolvent, and make your shares worth zero.

I'll now take questions on notice.

cheers!