Hi Blackcap, Pretty much what I stated? To clarify your point...

Hi Blackcap,

Pretty much what I stated? To clarify your point further, what is in the best interests of the company will often, but not necessarily, be what is in the best interests of the existing shareholders. In this case, I don't see how it can be argued to dilute the company by 50% and then gloat about repaying the term debt was in the interests of the company (and therefore stockholders). I can't think of a reason how it would be acceptable in corporate governance?

Have a look (and everyone on this thread for that matter) at the following link which summarises from the companies act 1993 the directors duties and obligations. I find it amazing how many of these duties are applicable in this RCPS scenario, particularly points 3, 7 and 8 (maybe point 2 when you consider that stockholders would have expected point 3 to be applied).

https://www.raineycollins.co.nz/your-resources/articles/directors-duties.html

I note that Toko is a lawyer, but that shouldn't put anyone off challenging this given the decision they made on the 14 September 2017. Please note, I fully agreed with the issue of the RCPS, just not the conversion as clearly the company didn't need to do this.