Share
11,993 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 6137
clock Created with Sketch.
27/05/23
09:17
Share
Originally posted by adreamer:
↑
Hey NZ, unless you have legal advice, you could well be wrong. (I am not a corp lawyer and have not sort legal advice here) Whist there is the 4c (rather than 15c) typo: Section 1 of the Explanatory Statement - Background to Placement (resolutions 1 to 5) states: The Placement Options will have an exercise price of 15 cents and an expiry date of 30 April 2026. The “Placement Options” are defined in the Glossary as “Options with an exercise price of 15 cents and an expiry date of 30 April 2026, the full terms of which are set out in Schedule 1. Schedule 1 states that the exercise price of the Options is 15 cents. If (which we know will not be the case) they were to slide in a decision at 4c then shareholders would have fair grounds to go to town on the board for being misleading. But I have direct confirmation the error exists and it will be 15c. I don’t see any SH arguing they have been misled and the company should get less money (only 4c) from this share issue. Maybe they should or even do need to issue a correction but that will be a decision of the board, company lawyers and ASX - all of which would have reviewed and approved this announcement. While it is a bit frustrating to see this error, most on this forum worked it out in minutes that it is a typo. If they choose not to correct it (to avoid further procedural delay) they accept the risk that the SH could decline the resolutions due to the wrong assumption. Most of the top holders DO read HC so they will know (and plenty of small holders too - even some traders - ;-) ). I know the company knows about the error because I told them and that is how I got the 100% confirmation that we will be voting on 15c not 4c. They know I have posted that confirmation here and I would hope by now I am considered as a reasonably trustworthy source. If you think I lie, you could clog up the email of Anusha. I don’t expect that anyone takes my word as it is not advice, rather just passing on what I have been told directly. I don’t recall who said it but someone mentioned a threat from the board that the company won’t receive money if these resolutions are voted down - it is not a threat, rather just explaining that if SH vote yes, the company gets money and if not the company won’t. This is standard to help SHs to understand the pros and cons. Sometimes the pros and cons are not so clear cut but it is a standard thing. Also, if the board members buy on market, this is not helping put money in the coffers but it would for the broad members more than taking up this offer. (Ref Densy post) Bucky I agree that 15c would have been a bit better to accept at 20c (or more) but it is a done thing and the company needed the money. I also agree that having the board buy in more is a good thing noting that often they can’t buy (likely as is the case for Roger presently) due to having access to information that could be reasonably perceived as insider trading. But the optics of 15c rather than 20c (or more) is just a bit tough. That said, we should not let our emotions get in the way of logic.
Expand
You can be Sure Sam will obviously take legal advice on behalf of the Company on such an issue.. My take is always Detail must be correct, Detail being Price and Dates,, Typos are acceptable e.g "Thet we move forward", "Then we move forward" But Dollars and Cents and Dates plus correct spelling of Names are integral Detail of Law. Not concerned BUT certainly even like you , we don't want to go through the process and find it's Null and Void,, especially when it can be remedied now and not waste valuable time or additional funds.. Also I believe the responsibility if for the Company to insure all Voters /SH are made aware of any correction not just individuals,, Off to breakfast ,,, NZT