announcement - capital raising, page-18

IT depends entirely on how one view dilution.

Below is the defintion of dilution in the sharemarket:

(Stock dilution is a general term that results from the issue of additional common shares by a company. This increase in common shares of a stock can result from a secondary market offering, employees exercising stock options, or by conversion of convertible bonds, preferred shares or warrants into stock. This dilution can shift fundamental positions of the stock such as ownership percentage, voting control, earnings per share, or the value of individual shares.

Control dilution describes the reduction in ownership percentage or loss of a controlling share of an investment's stock. Many venture capital contracts contain an anti-dilution provision in favor of the original investors, to protect their equity investments.
One way to raise new equity without diluting voting control is to give warrants to all the existing shareholders equally. They can choose to put more money in the company, OR ELSE LOSE OWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE.")

Now, the Company has given the opportunity to the shareholders to apply for an SPP. If shareholders had applied for their entitlements, those shareholders that applied for the SPP would not have suffered any dilution in their percentage ownership of the Company at all. To the contrary. As a matter of facts they could have increased, (depending of course on how much of the SPP they have taken up, their ownership of the company, and NOT DILUTED.

Take a simple example to figure out what I am trying to say here, which has been outlined below.

Let's say that a Shareholders owned 500k shares prior to the SPP being taken up, and say that the Company (For simplification purposes only), had 1billion shares on issue.
Now, prior to the SPP been put in place that particular shareholder would have owned 0.05% of the Company. After the SPP was issued the company issued new shares by about 18% (as you've stated) that would have increased the total shares on issue to about 1,180,000,000 shares. Subsequently that shareholder was then issued with another 272,000 shares or thereabout. Please note that the figures have been apportioned to the current shares on issue and the one we would have after the issue, in the best and simplest way possible.

Now, that same shareholders would not have been diluted at all, but in fact his percentage ownership of the company has now being increased as a result to 0.066% of the total shares on issue.
The only ones, that would have suffered some dilution, as I showed above in the dilution definition, would be the ones that didn't participate.

The only thing that I can see here is, that the Compnay has given the opportunity to every shareholder/investor to increase their percenatge holding of the company to counteract the dilution effect. Unfortunately for some they didn't take it up, and are now jumping up and down.

Finally, there can be times that dilution to a shareholder can occurr. There is no two ways about it. But that is only when he/she is not allowed to participate to a CR, or when Directors and Executives are issued free shares. When that happens, you may hear me saying it loud and clear that I am not happy.

In this instance though, that is not the case at all.

IMHO, there has to be supporting evidence if one wants to downramp, or upramp a company.

Cheers and good luck.
Buddy134