Ann: Supplementary Bidder's Statement, page-12

RG certainly wins the prize for chutzpah. Nice of the bidder to say today “we wanted to clarify [!!!]… [about delisting]”. He released this announcement early today, Monday, and it will go to all remaining shareholders, BUT he didn’t feel the need to tell shareholders about the seriousness of the application to the TO Panel on Friday, the preceding Business Day, which complains about similar misleading behaviour on the same matter, of delisting. Sailing very close to the wind.

I agree about the much longer extension this time, as I predicted when the TOP notice came out on Friday. However, the crucial point is that all his recent communications are solely attempting to intimidate people about delisting “risk”: that’s because he has NO other argument to persuade them to accept. He doesn’t want to draw attention to his desperate need to reach 90%, just in case the penny drops and minorities decide to call his bluff. I would hope by now that nearly all the holdouts are fully aware of what the bidder is up to, but there’s a risk that he can scrape up some acceptances by constantly banging this drum. That’s clearly what he is hoping.

An idle thought: are remaining shareholders (e.g. Manipur or HC posters) allowed to use the email addresses in the share register to send a purely factual email to their fellow holders, drawing their attention to the application to the TOP and to the article in The Australian? I know there are rules about only using a register for a “proper purpose” and that is considered narrowly by the courts. RG is choosing between letters, email and ASX announcements to gain the maximum or minimum contact (or delay) with holders, depending on the substance and whether RG really wants people to be aware of the communication (in those cases where he MUST make announcements etc). I.e. he is using this flexibility in his tactics against the minorities to boost the effect of the misleading commentary. Since, as many have said, the IBC have gone into hibernation for many weeks, it would be good if remaining holders could use email addresses to send immediate info to holders, to counter RG’s selective info releases. That course of action would need a legal opinion to ensure that it is “proper” but RG needs to be beaten at his own game. He plays a very tough game- so should shareholders, in response, given the total lack of help from the IBC.

Not advice.