@Justhavinago I agree with your thoughts and comments. I hope to...

@Justhavinago I agree with your thoughts and comments. I hope to make to the Sydney meeting, but may not be able to juggle things to be there.

You said "I also realise that just because its said on this forum by multiple people it may not be correct. It may be an incorrect/incomplete interpretation of the agreement. "

I accept and agree with this. I have posted my comments and I accept that my understanding may not be correct. However, I am only going on what has been published, not the actual agreements.

But it should be noted that just because the our CEO or Independent Directors say it is so, it may not be correct either.

I have read things in HAV announcements that I think are trying to say that if HAV misses a milestone then SIMEC/GFG cannot make a call on the loan. That may be correct. But if it is, why does SIMEC/GFG need security?

Perhaps there is nothing specific in the agreement that gives GFG/SIMEC the ability to call in its loan to HAV. However, even though there may be nothing in the agreement that means that SIMEC/GFG can call on their loans, there must be a reason why they need the security? Is it simply because SIMEC/GFG know that if HAV misses some milestones, they can turn the tap of further funding off, and if they turn the funding tap off the share price will drop to virtually nothing and no one else will lend any money to HAV therefore forcing HAV into insolvency.

Regardless of the explanation, I don't like the complexity of the deal.

Regardless of what Walter or anyone else says, I don't trust them.

If you would like an example of where I think that Walter and Co have been misleading, consider this.

The deal has been promoted as the first $50M as being committed. However, when you read the full announcement, you realise it is only $6 million that is committed. The next $43.5 million is conditional on HAV meeting the milestones and could be stopped at any stage by GFG?SIMEC if HAV doesn't achieve everything it said it would (and we all know what its past record of achieving its own goals are like). Therefore, it is misleading in my opinion to say that $50 million is committed when $43.5 million is conditional on continued meeting of milestones (and there are a lot to meet).

I guess what I'm saying is, it's hard to know who to trust when we don't have access to read the actual agreement.

The one person who is perhaps showing up as the most trustworthy is Giles - and he seems to have been gagged because we haven't heard from him. I would be willing to bet he won't be allowed to come to these shareholder briefings. And if he is not there and not allowed to speak freely, then us shareholders are not being provided a balanced view. And that in my mind would be another reason not to trust Walter & Co.