ext rio scenario ?!, page-43

Hi Marben Good questions. Although I feel confident that they would be all treated as associates under Australian law I did say that this is only opinion and that Dattels may have advice to the contrary. There is a whole range of case law on this as well as the statutory definitions but some important indications are "acting in concert" "acting with a common purpose" 'the ability to control and influence" "accustomed to acting under the directions of another" and the more clear cut common directors, sunsidiaries etc

It is clear Dattels and Polo are associated it remains a question as to whether KAH is associated as well. My feeling is that they are all associated but that is only a view and you may no a lot more about all the connections between them so please let me know if you think differently

If KAH is deemed an associate of Dattels/Polo then the only avenue left under which additional shares can be purchased without making a bid or holding a shareholder meeting to sanction such a purchase in excess of the threshold is to acquire shares via the "Creep provisions" the Creep provisions allow the purchase of an additional 3% every six months without making a bid. So purchases may well be taking place under that avenue. As you no doubt are doing we need to keep an eye on the substantial shareholder notices as every 1% increase will be announced by all who are now on record as substantial shareholders. Although the shareholder notices will list all the companies individuals etc that are related parties for the purposes of the notice, whether or not there are parties beyond this who are "associated" is a further and different question. ie KAH could well be brought within the definition and considered as part of Dattels, Polo and others under his influence.