I'm no lawyer, but reading the section 96 over and over again,...

I'm no lawyer, but reading the section 96 over and over again, in its entirety, there is no way that their (NKP/Zijin) lawyers legal interpretation is the intended interpretation of the act. Laws are set in a manner to protect, that is why they are introduced. IF NKP/Zijin interpretation is correct, why wouldn't ALL tASX companies set themselves out of Bermuda, put 6 directors on, and lend themseves $$ to a company in which they all own equal shares which is less than 20% per director?? Irrespective of Bermudan registered and ASX listed, JSE, USA, AIM listed there is no way this is he intended interpretation of that section. As I said If that is all legit, why isn't every director doing it, I mean, if no one will challange you its a great way of knocking some private mortgage debt down on the back of your employers excess cash balance, on loose terms apparently... Which brings me to my next point...

What about the "arms length" lending of that same section. Did they just conveniently leave that out of their legal response. Where was the collateral held by OUR company (NKP) for the loan, what was the interest rate, what were the repayment terms???

If you set up a bucket company as I mention above, do the other clauses of the section not apply. It seems they are picking and choosing to suit their own agenda.

Food for thought!!!