I'll back up HSHL on this issue. An independent expert's report is a legal requirement in certain circumstances and , while I can't verify the specific reference HSHL has given, I can only assume that this is one scenario where the report has been required.
What concerned me about the package received were the five resolutions asking us to ratify previous issues of shares and options. Jarl referred to the declaration by Richard Sealy that no more shares would need to be issued except in relation to specific funding already in train, so why dies MIK want to expand their capital raising capacity? This rings alarm bells for me. I haven't yet looked at the explanatory memorandum that came with the voting form, so can anyone tell me if there is an justification for these resolutions in there, or if not, any ideas why they are being put up?
I also noted with interest that one of the resolutions related to an issue of shares to Arrowhead, presumably in relation to the valuation report from some months ago. I'm not saying the valuation report is therefore biased, but I don't think it is quite as independent as it could have been, and as I think we were lead t believe. If a valuation report is commissioned and paid for I believe this fact should be disclosed at the time. This comes back to the transparency issue that Jarl mentioned, an issue I am in total agreement with him on.
MIK Price at posting:
2.9¢ Sentiment: LT Buy Disclosure: Held
