Thanks for the clarification DNW.
I wrote : .. ‘The point is 22 shareholders have been determined enough to register intentions to vote no to the proposal (no matter what new material may be revealed) despite that none of them are qualified as professional institutional or sophisticated investors (who are reckoned to have experience in such matters).”
And I see now you are right.
I ought to have written that none of the 22 who pre-empted the expert opinion are qualified as ‘market participants’.
As to their ‘sophistication’ ?
Given that - according to the notice yesterday - the entire 22 seem to have problems with English:
“Furthermore, it is not clear from the wording of the correspondence received whether these TMT shareholders intend to be bound by ASIC Regulatory Guide 25, particularly given the correspondence from each of the TMT shareholders is identical, contains a number of errors and was received prior to the public release of the scheme booklet (and the accompanying independent expert’s report)…”
Perhaps you might aid them in their next submission?
