I am surprised that you are taking the position you are. I see that David's post has now been pulled down from the multiple platforms it had been put it on, but reading through the lengthy document, I make the following comments that you should be aware of:
Why this document and the previous correspondence issued via email were not issued via the ASX, which would appear to be a breach of Director duties and due to the signature on the emails to the shareholders, may have forced both BPH and Grandbridge into a position where they have potentially breached the confidentiality agreement that Mr Breeze nominated was in place in relation to this supposed deal
I cannot understand how the $5M of funding Mr Breeze says is “immediately available” to MEC is calculated. Summarising each of the offers that were nominated in the document:
Shareholder offer = $500,000 (does not nominate what percentage of the company or permit is required for this money)
Further independent offer = $500,000 (does not nominate what percentage of the company or permit is required for this money)
Bonaparte and PEP 11 offer = $700,000 (does not nominate what percentage of the company or permit is required for this money)
The total value of the offers as Mr Breeze nominated is significantly less than the $5M that was stated in bold and does not nominate:
a) how much dilution would be required for this funding to be put in place and
b) whether all of the funding offers could be taken at the same time.
3. Mr Breeze nominates that the $5M of funding (that I have just shown above is actually significantly less if it could all actually be done at the same time) is immediately available subject to board changes in MEC with “the installation of a neutral board”. The MEC correspondence indicates that Mr Breeze personally had been campaigning for a new board. The statement in the last paragraph, “A global resolution of the dispute and removal of the MEC board may put BPH in a position that its prospectus raising can achieve these objectives”, indicates that the board that Mr Breeze, and apparently you, want in place would not be neutral, but aligned with BPH.
I also noted that this communication had been uploaded to the BPH and Grandbridge hotcopper platforms (before it was pulled down).
What is the relationship between the MEC funding and GBA, and why is this the first post Mr Breeze had made on GBA hotcopper since GBA was suspended in mid year.
Surely there would be more important things to be discussing with the shareholders, unless GBA is somehow being tied to the supposed BPH deals relating to MEC?
MMR Price at posting:
2.1¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)