Frequently Asked Questions, page-7

Well done in levering a few more words out of them. It's a bit academic for me at this stage, since I've already voted - just waiting to see the result.

On the 'unfairness' vs 'reasonableness' issue, the logic remains a bit questionable to me.

The advisor basically says the deal is 'not fair' because the current shareholders do not get the full value of OBJ at the time of sale. Being at historic lows, that stings even more.

Paying on the higher side of the advisor's range for NS seems a corresponding, aggravating contributor to the same unfairness.

The BOD may point out we get full income prior to full payment, but that illustrates that the price is high. It's also a backdoor listing for Danny's company, not just an acquistion by OBJ and we aren't getting the money to pay for it, free of charge.

'Reasonableness' is measured by whether paying a higher price for a profitable acquisition, and accepting a lower price for OBJ, is better - compared to doing nothing or, in comparison to hitherto unprofitable OBJ position immediately prior to suspension.

However, accepting that proposition seems to fly in the face of OBJ dynamism - all the stuff that has reached lift-off. We weren't fixed in place, all our ideas tried and failed - far from it.

I don't believe OBJ saying 'oh, sad face emoji, now we must close the doors', was a fair basis for comparison. Indeed, it wasn't what OBJ said, just some of the pro-crowd here - and the advisor's opinion regarding alternatives was, (careful to avoid any hint of enthusiasm) a cap raise or a different acquisition and cap raise.

No, OBJ will not cancel the new embedded, replacement P&G products, scuttle Reduit, cancel Bodyguard, or scrap nascent green pharma stick-ons for their patented mini-molecules if the acquisition is knocked back.

The deal can be described as 'reasonable', only if you apply a special accounting meaning to that term, not grant it the full ordinary meaning of the word 'reasonable'.

As in, 'that looks like a reasonable deal Clarrie'. 'Oh, so you reckon it's fair enough then Fred?'. 'Oh no, I never said it was 'fair'. In fact, I would say it is 'not fair', but it looks 'reasonable - but only if you compare it to an alternative contrived as nasty, or left to your imagination.'

That's been something that irked me, since there was no hint of the imminent destruction of OBJ (now being claimed by the pro-crowd as inevitable) prior to the acquisition proposal.

Apparently, 'what will we do if the holders vote down the proposal?' was not a question frequently asked in polite company.

Might have a look at the rest of it later.

Irrespective of our 'arguments' on here, again, good job in winkling out some explanations that were more cogent than what we have had. Let them join a few friggin' dots for change...