Ann: Third Supplementary Target's Statement, page-46

Well further to that I find the idea that JBL couldn't also be subsequently be removed with any number of causes offered that would appear to invalidate the 5% NAV penalty for early termination of the IMA such a bizarre contention. I mean... they wouldn't even be capable of working out what that was for starters - even if they were entitled to it! What would they take it in anyway... JBL script!? Well Jokes on them then because that has no value haha!

At this point it simply feel as if I'm in some weird parallel universe or something because on top of everything else ASIC seems to believe that being the corporate regulator means recommending that companies not do the wrong thing.

It's almost like a really bad Terry Pratchett novel or something.