@nUmbaz I would be with 100% because you have some very valid...

@nUmbaz I would be with 100% because you have some very valid reasons, but, and there is a big BUT for me. (although I do thank you for posting the other side of the argument here - it was getting a bit one sided and those thinking of voting yes, please post your thoughts).

If the deal with SIMEC/GFG was structured so that HAV agreed to issue shares to SIMEC/GFG at the proposed prices in the tranches proposed, HAV received the funds and issued the shares, then spent the money to perform the agreed scope of works, and if satisfied with the outcome, HAV would issue some more shares to GFG/SIMEC and having received the next tranche of funds performed the work for the next stage. Basically, a standard share issue for an agreed purpose. If this was the structure, I would agree with you and would probably vote yes. If everything goes smoothly then the outcome is the same as the outcome of the promoted deal. If everything doesn't go smoothly, then GFG/SIMEC as in exactly the same position as all other shareholders. That to me is fair.

However, the deal that is being promoted is structured such that GFG/SIMEC first loans the money to HAV, HAV spends the money on the agreed scope of works, meets the defined success criteria, and is then issues the shares to repay the loan. This is the catch that I don't like and the reason I will vote NO. HAV gives to GFG/SIMEC security over the iron and copper assets so that in the event of insolvency, GFG/SIMEC can take those assets. Whilst GFG/SIMEC purchasing the iron and copper assets would be a related party transaction, the EGM votes includes shareholder pre-approval for GFG/SIMEC to acquire those assets so there is no further shareholder vote required. If things go smoothly, everything is OK. If things do not go smoothly (and there is every possibility of something not going to plan over a three year period), then GFG/SIMEC is not in the same position as all other shareholders and they have a much better outcome. To use your analogy, the pie that is left for the shareholders could be empty if things don't go smoothly and it doesn't matter how big your slice is if the pie is empty.

If anyone feels my understanding is wrong, please let me know.