Perdy,I guess from GP's point of view - if the shares were not...

Perdy,

I guess from GP's point of view - if the shares were not 'sold' and any transaction undertaken with the shares has complied with applicable legal requirements, he is not required to answer any further questions.

I agree that the confusion has been greatly increased by BT confirming that there was a major shareholder selling down while at the same time refusing to release the top20 - which had us all hanging out for an answer for many months - more so after the company spectacularly collapsed.

However while one shareholder stood out due to past ASX releases, in the light of comments by gka, it is now likely that he was not the shareholder that BT was referring to.

Certainly there were other top20 shareholders selling shares.

I, for one will no longer discuss this issue on HC unless new facts emerge. Certainly it would be causing that individual great distress if they have unwaveringly supported the company.

Unfortunately 'facts' are thin on the ground when it comes to KML, and yet again we sit in the dark wondering about what the company is up to with our assets.

A far the greater concern, as indicated by gka is the actions of past and present management.
And of those the forward looking ones are the most important - eg the current dilution and asset sales we are facing.

Any sales by a top shareholder while a concern at the time has now become merely a sideshow.

I am especially disappointed that virtually no shareholders voted against any of the recent movements put to shareholders.
This proves to me that I am virtually alone in my negative view of recent and planned actions, and as I don't want to ruin the companies chances as a lone, bitter shareholder, I am inclined to limit further posts on KML by myself.