Greatcell Rescue, page-39

Thanks Hermanity, I have thumbed up on your response for the level of detail in your response.

I'm still interested in who is going to be able to buy almost 4 times the total number of shares that existing shareholders are going to be left with for the grand total of around $31k under the promoter offer. Again it doesn't seem like a "rescue" for me, it seems like a rescue for creditors and then someone getting IP that used to belong to existing shareholders for a Steal. Why are the terms 41x better for those under the promoter placement than the placement that existing shareholders will be able to participate in? How can that possibly be justified?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want The other crowd's bid to be successful over yours. While it appears more than twice as favourable to existing shareholders than your proposal, it is still awful. I'm enraged that people involved in that bid didn't come to existing shareholders to raise cash before letting it go into administration and then has the cheek to then put in such a small offer for 80% of the company. It feels criminal to me for them to overlook a raising that existing shareholders could have participated in favourably that could have avoided this whole situation and then be able to put in a bid for almost the whole company for a miserly $2.5m. I am fairly sure if they had come to shareholders for $11m or whatever it was that was needed to get MAD done with additional funding from Arena etc. with the (relatively large for GSL) raising to be done at say a 50% discount to last traded price the raising would have had a good chance of success. I for one would have been right into investing into a company making project at a 50% discount. But instead they obliterated my investment, ended all chance of MAD and Arena funding etc. and put in their own bid for 80% the company at roughly a 99% discount to last traded price (someone check my maths though). I think it's criminal and they shouldn't be able to take advantage of a situation where Existing shareholders were never given the chance to avoid. Year after year at the AGM they resisted calls to reconsider one large salary in particular citing the cost of talent in an international marketplace. Well where was the talent we were paying for given how badly things went for shareholders?

BUT while I don't want the other crowd to be successful, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with the new crowd either. I note wording in your proposal that the proposed capital structure and reconstruction may be varied at the sole discretion of the syndicate. I would hope that unless I am wrong about the concerns I've raised e.g. the promoter placement being 41x more favourable than the placement existing shareholders can participate in, that the syndicate will significantly vary the proposed capital structure to be fairer towards existing shareholders as s show of good faith.