eureka, page-19

Hi Kalimaya,

in essence my scenario implies that the BOD has requested the capital injection and thus approves the hedge, you see thats another problem with giving up control.

If you read recently about the companies (of which FML was included) coming into the AGM season and potentially up for a second strike (that is they have already recieved one), it was interesting to note that James Packer came straight out and basically said don't bother giving the crown boys a second strike due to the fact that if it happens and their board is automatically dismissed he will immediately step in to reinstate them all by using his controlling stake.

This controlling stake means everything, No matter what we are told, or should I say sold, in regard to FMl having a majority independent board (ie away from Shandong), at the end of the day Shandong are THE ONLY shareholder from here on in who have the power to alter the board with their vote.


Now ofcourse I have never seen a lawsuit settled in a timely nor fiscally prudent fashion, however I have never seen a minority group of shareholders band enough support or coin between them to take on a government controlled entity, which in effect is what we will be doing.


And not knowing Governmental or Constitutional law I am unsure on the part the government or a FIRB body would play, other than to say hedging happens every day, its just that this time the Chinese can hind behind the veil and simply state they are being fically prudent and reducing exposure for not only them but us other 49% shareholders by hedging to ensure a 500mil capital injection pays off.. ofcourse what they are really doing is ensuring it not only pays off, but infact handballs an even larger share of the profits to themselves.


But hey, do we just run with the "their our mates, they wouldn't do that" line?? Because I've been taught theres no friends in business.

Cheers
Davo