"I think the reason Uttsy this deal might have been brokered...

"I think the reason Uttsy this deal might have been brokered when the share price was at an all time low of 2.1 at Christmas last year so maybe 2.4 was a premium at the time I think that has been already spoken about and posted already"

I can only hope that you are wrong mr b.

It would mean that our directors showed a high level of incompetent. 2.1cps was only relevant for a day or two, having dropped from the high 20's only a few days/week before. Since then, it soon recovered and had been hovering around the late 2's and even early 3cps only a week before this 'give away' type announcement was made.

Why continue with a deal that was completely out of context with the current times. Renegotiation should surely have been entered into to make for a fairer deal. At of today the directors have gifted a 0.3-0.4cents per share gain on a 2.4cps investment, i.e., 12.5% gain in a week with a real possibility of over 100% within months. Their $20m investment is now worth $2.24m, a gain of $2.24m for each 0.003 cent rise in the value of our shares. Great increase for those in the know, pity my value went down 0.004cps on the day of announcement.

Interest from a bank would not have been that costly and pre-holders would still have owned 100% of a company that they now only own 80% of.

If not incompetence to an extreme, the alternate is that the directors had no confidence in what they had previously announced was the truth or would take the company forward. Not a good alternative in my view.

Yes, the extra money will come in handy to advance ABU but the cost to pre-announcement holders has been extreme and in my view and certainly not justified. At the very least, a renegotiated CR or loan should have occurred. BM