They seem to be digging themselves a deeper hole!I got the...

They seem to be digging themselves a deeper hole!
I got the dividend statement too which was potentially defective in a number of ways.
The dividend rate is applied to the number of RXL shares sold rather than number of VMC shares, this implies that VMC have in effect created a separate share class based on being a shareholder whose RXL shares were incorrectly sold and then paid a dividend to that newly created class in an attempt to fix their error. There has been no declaration of dividend nor capital restructuring that would allow the payment of a selective dividend.
When they finally get round to issuing the payment statement in relation to the in-specie distribution how will they handle that? We were entitled to the full distribution but VMC withheld 47% tax, they are required to remit this withholding to the ATO and we get to claim the credit back in our tax returns. Now they have paid us a dividend which is legally separate from the in-specie distribution so on the face of it we are getting double paid.
In an apparent attempt to avoid having to simply admit they made a mistake & correcting the mistake accordingly, they have created a convoluted process designed to make out that they knew what they were doing all along - such schemes designed to hide errors are foolish & seldom result in a favourable outcome.
They have paid us an unfranked dividend apparently in an attempt to correct their error in withholding tax from a capital payment. If they are conceding that the in-specie distribution was a capital payment and therefore not subject to withholding how on earth do they think they can correct the error by refunding incorrectly withheld capital proceeds with a payment described as an unfranked dividend & therefore being subject to tax on the revenue account?
I could continue on with problems in the way this payment process has been administered but I am going to wait until they issue the payment statements in relation to the in-specie distribution so I have the full picture of the tangled web that VMC and it’s advisors have woven themselves.
It is not in my interest to lodge complaints with ASIC or the ATO as the costs of the outcome would be borne by VMC which means me and the other poorly represented shareholders. However, if I can determine that this fiasco is a result of defective advice from overpaid advisors (who usually have significant professional indemnity insurance coverage), then the gloves will be removed and I shall proceed to fill my boots with gay abandon.
I remain a grumpy old man