The 'act' you refer to in the first section is greatly different when it is an indirect holding paid for by a company they are both a director of, and we have no idea of what revenue or funds they are using. That's just the facts. You'll notice that both of these transactions, both Shalom and Pnina had to declare the same amount of holdings with both relating to the Volcom transaction because they are directors of both. It is not their holding individually, but their holding as a director of another company.
On the second section - an asset was transferred as a loan with an expected value of $1.2million to be repaid to QBL/CGB shareholders at some stage. The fact no cash changed hands isn't really my point, rather than buying shares via Volcom, perhaps Volcom should of been paying back the loan (which apparently is a loan directly to a company owned by the same two people!) and thus shareholders would of recieved less dilution. One of these raises was only for 1.8million, so 2/3rds could of been covered by repaying that loan.
If it is not intended to be repaid, then forfeit the asset back to shareholders of CGB.
Furthermore - V.A.C is not the entity which pays the Feldmans. That entity is AGMPL (https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20160930/pdf/43bmm4w1v0jc7t.pdf - see page 17 and 18 - service agreements) and that deals with all payments and is also run by Pnina feldman.
V.A.C is a separate entity (alongside La'Hayyim') that is explained here https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20160930/pdf/43bmm4w1v0jc7t.pdf - These holdings are not individual holdings, but rather a company they are directors in holding (thus seen as an indirect interest).
