re: Ann: WestSide Corporation Limited 2011-20... some may have...

re: Ann: WestSide Corporation Limited 2011-20... some may have slipped-off the Top20 simply because the numbers changed- ie after the R/I a higher number of shares were required to remain in the Top20. Thus, if some big s/h did not take up their rights, and/or did not subscribe for excess, then they may well have missed the cut.

also i think some s/h have changed the names under which they hold their shares- am not certain.

But importantly, the interests associated with the Board are stll all there, and all took up their rights, and have not dumped their stock.SAAD and BUMI did not.

whilst we are on the subject of the Top20, have a look at the following article re Bumi.
Interesting stuff.

So imho, now SAAD and BUMI would surely be sellers if they had the opportunity?

cheers

******************************************************

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-street-journal/investors-have-nate-rothschild-to-blame-for-85pc-loss-on-bumi/story-fnay3x58-1226481130538

IF the City of London has become a "cesspit", as the Bank of England's deputy governor recently stated, Bumi looks like a top exhibit.

The Indonesian coal miner's shares fell 25 per cent in London Monday, after it said it was investigating "financial irregularities" at PT Bumi Resources, in which it holds a 29 per cent stake. The disclosure is the latest in a string of problems at Bumi, listed in London in the summer of 2011 via a reverse takeover engineered by financier Nat Rothschild.

In all, investors who bet on Mr Rothschild's vision of bringing UK corporate-governance standards to an emerging-market resources firm have him to thank for an 85 per cent loss. But advisers on the deal, as well as the UK regulator, should also be in their firing line.

Mr Rothschild has already lost considerable influence at Bumi. He relinquished his role as Bumi's co-chairman earlier this year after a power struggle with the Bakrie family and its new co-chairman, Samin Tan, who together own 47 per cent of the company. That came after Mr Rothschild openly criticised non-core investments and loans made by Bumi Resources to various connected parties.

The criticisms struck many as rather hollow given that Mr Rothschild does not appear to have raised them when he first reversed Bumi Resources into his shell company, Vallar. The combined company was renamed Bumi; Bumi Resources remains listed in Jakarta.

The latest incident could be yet more serious. Bumi's board is investigating so-called business development assets worth $US600 million held by Bumi Resources when Vallar bought its initial 25 per cent stake in the company in March 2011. Acting on a whistleblower's information, Bumi's independent directors are looking into what happened to those funds, amid allegations of "financial irregularities".

Such issues raise questions about the role of Bumi's high-profile advisers, and whether they performed adequate due diligence before Vallar's investment in Bumi Resources was made. J.P. Morgan, Bumi's principal banking sponsors; the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers; and the law firm Freshfields all signed off on the prospectus that enabled Bumi to achieve a so-called premium listing in the FTSE 250 last summer. Such a listing ensures investment funds that track the index are required to buy shares in the company. None of the firms immediately responded to requests for comment.

The impression left, though, is that Mr Rothschild and his sponsors made use of weaknesses in the UK regulatory system when it comes to reverse takeovers. The UK Listings Authority, part of the Financial Services Authority, requires companies aiming for a premium listing to provide three years of audited accounts, but a company's sponsors need to ensure all the financial statements are in order. At this stage, as irregularities emerge. It is of little consolation to investors that even Mr Rothschild's original investment is now under water.