clowns, page-2

If you have been reading the KML threads and a member since 2004, why did you wait so long to correct an errant perception then?

You could have simply posted this explanation prior.

As someone who knows 'the rules', can you explain why a substantial shareholder notice did not need to be lodged?
Reading the announcement, the shares seemed to be held in the name of an individual, not a trust or company.

The holder was a person, not a trust, so I still don't understand

Also, if you have actually been reading the threads, you will see that retail holders are fed up with both current and prior management.

Do you not think it is a fair assumption to assume a holder has been selling shares if the reported shareholding drops by 50%, and there is no notification of a change in substantial holding, or that the shares were in a trust to begin with?

It has been a matter of interest due to the former MD refusing too release top20 holder reports for many months - even up till his resignation?