Section 67 mandates. It’s an Australian asset because the Company is Australian.
Yibin avoided the trouble of a prohibition order by withdrawing its application. It’s worth reading section 67 for a flavour of what emerges after such an order.
In my view AVZ while keeping to the preliminary view of the Tressury via Yibin (Yibin’s lawyers), would need to articulate the interests of the company and its financial suitor in this instance as well, what’s interesting is at what point did Yibin change its mind about accepting less than a board seat?
Project finance ratio of funding will be interesting to see here.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C01144/58cb7068-2a3e-448d-9ced-bf22af9e389e
