Big picture in real basic - All IMO and not exact in any way I...

Big picture in real basic - All IMO and not exact in any way I have dumbed this way down in case you know none of the history and I may have bits wrong. Big boys are playing it out for control fo KBC and YOW which is 80% owned by KBC.

It is all guessing and nothing alleged by me and big dogs are doing serious lawyers at 10 paces and I am not getting into any of that crapfight.

KBC was being run underneath by same blokes as YOW Corporate raiders deal makers etc etc.
KBC and related parties own 80 plus % of YOW
KBC and YOW did unsecured loans between each other as YOW had cash and KBC did not
KBC had a deal and then they made a extra ordinary profit on that deal - call it corporate extortion but all fine and business
KBC decided to pay " dealmaker" mega bonus rather than $ go to shareholders
KBC did not pay back unsecured YOW loan

WAM area shareholder in KBC and by default in YOW
WAM pissed off by big bonus to KBC dealmaker Bolton and taking / took steps to have it frozen reversed looked into aong with other corporate governance
KBC went into Administration as YOW called in Loan ( remember YOW and KBC at this point controlled by ( in my words same people) wearing different corporate hats
KBC now out of administration and WAM in control of directorships at KBC not Bolton
KBC ( now WAM controlled) then was as 80% owner trying to install its own directors into YOW - ie theory to get rid of patton and bolton and have full control to eventually extract value
YOW did a quick issue ( to who we do not officially know) to have cash in kitty possibly to stop going into admin ? and have more scrutiny and also to possibly dilute other holders to ensure a compulsory acquisition wasn't mandatory.


The whole above letter is basically the technical details of who was in control of KBC being either WAM directors or KBC Administrator when letter from KBC was written to YOW to have new directors appointed .. Then 2nd letter same request / questions of whether the letter complies as a request to call meeting and propose change of directors- ie is letter valid and does it comply with corporate law.

Why is it important - it may just be a dealying tactic by YOW to keep control as tehy do other stuff and it might be technical for other reasons but ultimately YOW is trying to get cash back it loaned to KBC unsecured and KBC ( WAM controlled) is unlikley to want to pay it and see it pissed out door before it had directors in control of YOW and can see books etc. YOW will need cash to continue business and pay lawyers and will be heading to claim damages I suspect under current management from KBC etc etc


Hope I have confused the hell out of YA and as said above just my quick overview as lots of little details and lawyers being smart going on to try and protect what is left of a investment company and also chocolate company who just lost major client.

Likely only big boys after this has all played out will be able to extract value from shares as only minor holders left and big boys will time it to their advantage

.