Interesting discussion, but it is my opinion that this Scheme...

Interesting discussion, but it is my opinion that this Scheme must be stopped by SLR shareholders not lawyers.

It is a breach of directors fiduciary duties to act against the interests of shareholders. That is probably why the BOD commissioned an independent expert to provide an opinion even though they are not required to do so. The Expert then commissioned a technical Expert to provide another opinion to cross reference.

Both Experts valued SLR signficantly higher than RED using Discounted Cash Flow methods and comparisons based on all the facts that both companies provided them with various assumptions such as POG and exchange rates.

This analysis was then dismissed, even though there are many pages (more than I care to count) of analysis, facts, assumptions and work done seperately by 2 expert parties. Just totally dismissed when coming to the Experts conclusion and recommendation.

If it was used then the Scheme would have have logically been deemed unfair to SLR shareholders and not in our best interests. The expert instead jumped to a conclusion that the best method of valuing the Scheme consideration was to use the share price of RED post scheme announcement - which is a recursive use of logic. IE. They are using a share price which is entirely linked to the script offer ratio of the Scheme which will of course align with what the Scheme proproses -

THIS IS UTTERLY PREPOSTOROUS!

Read section 12.3 for further info on this.

I am considering drafting a letter pointing this out to the following parties:

1. BDO
2. ASIC who governs Scheme of Arrangements and Corporations Law and provides Guidelines on expert reports Regulatory Guide 111
3. The SLR Board of Directors - each one of them individually
4. The institute of Chartered Accountants pointing out a possible breach in Professional Standards
5. AFCA - as per Complaints resolution process in the Independent Expert Report

* defintion of an Expert: a has been drip under pressure