Just reading between the lines, based on that change of...

Just reading between the lines, based on that change of shareholder announcement last week, Drake will have cleared the way for a new request.

Clearly Drake would not have gone to the trouble of shuffling the shares held between the existing two accounts and a new direct holding by Anthony Faillace of 5.81%.

Strangely the actual form (from my reading of it) for the variation does appear to have an error (and I repeat its from my reading of it), in that whilst the overall total of all CDI's held remain the same (22,380,142) there is reference to a total coupling of 14,930,142 for a combination of both Drake Private and Anthony Faillace (it refers to "shares held in their own name") , and another 7,450,000 held by Drake Private. (Also has Drake Special been misrepresented by reference to Drake Private twice?).
Whilst its possible the company could grasp at this technicality to attempt to defer again any request for an EGM I think it's just going to frustrate shareholders even more!