You obviously spent a lot of time with this, which I respect....

You obviously spent a lot of time with this, which I respect. It's clear it's been a rough ride.

You would have to agree the precursor to these events was from previous managements actions. I assume the non core asset sale funds were received? Debt to Hudson... no surprise. GTTs fault again?

So investors from the GTT capital raise sold into liquidity events on a stock with low liquidity? Hardly abnormal in the small caps where new capital is costly and limited.
They then injected more capital in the next raise. In doing so the now three new directors had cleaned up a dog of a shell and moved into a new field, lithium, which was seeing massive industry growth.

I'm assuming shortfalls were placed at directors discretion as usual. If I was a director I would issue those shortfalls to people that were on board with the companies direction. That's pretty basic, you don't give them to a stale holder that just got heavily diluted and is reporting you to ASIC.
How does this equal vote stacking? It equals good business.
Accusations on stacking votes goes back to the definition of a relevant interest and to the takeover panels decision.

Didnt the takeovers panel come out with 21.5%, no? Just over the threshold?

The relevant interest and control of votes rule is definitely a massive grey area, what with the majority or broking houses, advisors and asset managers having clients that they know externally. That's a massive can of worms to open and one that would have implications throughout the market. Perhaps you are slightly bias here?

Either way, I'm just trying to see things from a different view point. I'm not saying you are right or wrong.