Thanks for pointing that out squire. I have now re-read the ann...

Thanks for pointing that out squire.

I have now re-read the ann and extracted these parts, and btw my emphasis:

"Auris Minerals Ltd (ASX: AUR) is pleased to announce that it has entered into an underwriting agreement with Somers and Partners Pty Limited (Somers) in relation to the Company’s listed option series (ASX: AUROA) for a minimum amount of $1.25 million and up to A$1.50 million (Underwriting).

The Underwriting was supported by existing shareholders of Auris and institutional investors...

.... The underwriting agreement contains standard termination provisions for an agreement of this nature. In the event that any subunderwriters engaged by Somers are unable to fulfil their commitments, the underwritten amount may be reduced by the amount of the relevant subunderwriter’s commitment. "

So, may be reduced etc!! Sub-underwriters etc

Here is a definition of 'sub-underwriter' that I have found:

"Sub-underwriter": A member of a new issue syndicate who agrees to buy a certain proportion of the issue from the managers should the issue be undersubscribed. They receive an underwriting fee and a selling concession on the principal amount of the securities for which they may subscribe.

That definition should mean that any sub-underwriter of Somers would only have to pay up if Somers cannot provide the funds itself. However, that doesn't fit with the AUR ann which says that the commitment may be reduced if a sub-u cannot fulfil its commitments.

Add these words to the equation: 'supported by existing AUR shareholders and institutional investors' and you have to ponder the possibility that one or more of these shareholders and investors withdrew that support, and so undermined either Somers' or a sub-u's (or both) commitment - hence the non-issue of the shares? In this scenario, who pulled the pin?