fair call my bad.. I was playing the man not the ball.. however,...

fair call my bad.. I was playing the man not the ball..

however, I will not change my fundamental position and that is as follows

- what was published in the contingent payment deed states clearly 'any transaction'
- my question to CPN was and still is, 'please advise us, as investors, for clarity'
- what is not published, is that the 'any' is allegedly 'any, with one exclusion and that exclusion is a transaction that involves the aquisition of shares in the controlling company, via a scheme of arrangement or any other means of consideration'

furthermore, I know and you know, that if this went before a judge, and was subject to the full, unbiased and fair judgement of the law, there is a chance, that a judge, would look at the published 'summary' of contingent payment deed and the 'wording' of that document, then compare that with the 'actual' and contractual contingent payment deed, commercial in confidence and remark or conclude that

a) the transaction regardless of the 'method' indeed allegedly had 'the economic effect of a change of control'
b) information published and accessible to investors allegedly did not fully inform investors of potential exclusions from the wording 'any transaction'
c) the knowledge of the such 'exclusions' would have allegedly been known by directors of both parties to the transaction, at the beginning of the transaction because the terms of the deed were not variable
d) the conflict in wording between the published 'summary' and the actual 'contract' could allegedly raise concerns in terms of full disclosure
e) investors in CPN holding shares from the time of the announcement regarding the transaction and the execution of the scheme of arrangement have allegedly suffered significant economic loss
f) investors allegedly made repeated and numerous attempts, over the course of the process to gain clarity in regard to payability of the contingent payment deed and may have acted accordingly had the full implications of exclusions within the contract been known
g) the scale of the 'uplift' in value, of the asset West Musgrave published in documentation by parties to the T/O allegedly shows the magnitude of benefit delivered to shareholders of the target and had the target been offered a price that 'did not' reflect this uplift, the T/O may not have been successful
h) the contingent payment deed was 'allegedly' used as 'inducement' for the target to gain full control of the asset yet when it came time to reap the full benefit from the asset for it's own shareholders, it allegedly forgot about the entity that it 'induced' to relinquish control from
i) either 1) the payability of the contingent payment deed is allegedly contestable or 2) investors of CPN have allegedly suffered loss as a result of the failure to disclose market and/or price sensitive information

CPN allegedly got rolled but at least I fought to protect CPN value .. what a waste of effort that was