I wouldn't call it a rushed CR, given there are two weeks of...

I wouldn't call it a rushed CR, given there are two weeks of trading before going "ex"....if the recent raise was a dilutionary tactic then this raise is highly risky now the barbarians are at the gate, so to speak.
For disclosure, I took a small register hold as an option on participating in the raise, sensing an overhaul of the company. The 249d has thrown another element into the ring. So, will the board and underwriter allow holders to bid for shortfall( as is usually the case)?... or will RM take it and maybe allocate it to friendly faces?
That will be a blow to 249ers, which, can be countered by simply bidding on market for the next 2 weeks and possibly afterwards.
But, back to the 249, which is likely to be invalid, as claimed. I'll bet Matthew Bull knew this already but was done as a shot across the bow, as a warning. MB could easily rustle up 5%+ based simply on the T20. ( I can see 2 holders that may easy take his side).
What's important now is the next move, by the board. If they don't respond or back down then I suspect MB will fire off another 249, but one that's cast iron in legality. He has/will get a copy of the register. This is the next move, getting in touch with major holders and likely all other holders given the voting numbers at the agm, easily, we can see holders are motivated.
This will be followed by a notice of meeting and from then onwards, the board will be watching the vote count. In many cases, directors, seeing a vote accumulate against them, will resign prior to a meeting, thus preserving their "reputation ".
So, we await the next move or two, with the capital raise adding another layer of intrigue.
Again, if MB pushes on, do we see an on market push for additional stock, nullifying any dilution?
Does the board intend to allocate shortfall to friendlies to shore up their defences??
If they get a hint of an incoming tidal wave, will they bail and head for higher ground?
I can also relate to a 249 I was involved in, where the director/ secretary who was the target, " forgot" to allocate placement stock, meaning the new shares couldn't be used for voting. Needless to say, that was reported and eventually he saw the light and resigned, likely in capitulation but also to try and preserve some dignity. My point...don't be surprised at the tactics taken by the board in retaliation.
These stoushes can be exciting but also messy and counter-productive if drawn out, in most cases where " the force is strong", the defending directors will back away.
We await...