Ann: Update on Voluntary Suspension, page-12

This is in reply to one of Ozblue old post:...........

Ozblue you wrote:

""(What's the alternative? do nothing and hope? That is the usual approach and the company goes to China anyway. I'm suggesting shareholders fight to keep their company.
Sure they could possibly replace most of the board, then what? Do nothing? If you have 3 separate groups acting in concert as one, then I think if shareholders pushed it, the T/O provisions of the corporations act would come into play about a T/O offer to shareholders, ie more than 20% acting in concert as one.

If my suggestions are a tad naive, then what's the alternative? You and I both know do nothing means the end of the company.

It is amazing how stirring the pot makes things happen)""



OB, the point is that although it is obvious that they are acting in concert, no one can actually confirm or being able prove that, because everything went, and it is still going via the books.

Take in consideration for instance who initiated the removal of WM....was it the three amigos or was it just one of them or a third party with in excess of 5% of the total shares on issue....

Now to initiate the removal, or force a Sect.249 D to call an EGM to remove one Director or the whole lot of the Board, it only takes 100 shareholders regardless of the amount of shares they hold in total, or someone with at least 5% of the Company. Once the motion is initiated, the rest of the shareholders will vote either "YES" or "NO" for the motion/resolution.

The rest of the Chinese would have voted in favour of the motion we all know that, hence why WM decided to take his can of coke and walk. If not, IMO, he would have had to face an humiliating defeat. You can rest assured that no Director would want that recorded against their Records/Resume. Nothing unusual about that is there. So what makes you think that they now should be forced to do a T/O of CDU when there is no evidence at all to force them to do such a thing.?? Only when one shareholders will reach 20% of the total shares of a company he/she/it is then forced to declare his/hers/it's intentions..............whatever they might be.....yet again they can say that they have no intention while doing other things in the background.
Now, does any of those Chinese entities or otherwise hold in excess of 20% of CDU.???

What they are doing is all legal and all by the books. They (The Chinese) are smart cookies mate, let me tell you, and they know all the ins and outs of our legal system including how the ASX and ASIC are working.
What's the alternative you asked............

Well mate, me being me and being down this road in the past and having learnt from it, let me tell that there is nothing we can do. They have the power and the muscles to do what they want. We just have to grin and bear it. Yes we can force a Sect. 249D or whatever else, and force an EGM, but we wouldn't have the voting power to make them change their minds and IMO it would end up making things worse still than what they are now.
As Hoot wrote, what would happen if you were to poke a flaming red rod up their nose.???

As for stirring the pot which is another thing that you suggest, the same thing happened with NXS. And guess what, what did the stirring do there.??? None of the investors there (YES, ME INCLUDED), walked away with one single cent in their pockets. That was what stirring the pot did to us all. SAD BUT TRUE!!!!!

And what did ASIC do about it all while the shareholders were getting screwed.???? Well Ozblue you guessed it. Bloody nothing..... It was all legal and by the book....

Lets face it now...lets face reality.....forget about talking to Hutch and David, try to talk to the Chinese and see what they have in mind for us...They might, and I repeat might, be willing to listen to us and to our concerns..........

After all, is the position of both Hutch and David a permanent one or a temporary one.??

Cheers mate.

dyor!!