Talks at the time were around a mine to magnet strategy....

So demanding repayment is the only option? This would present considerable risk to investors, why isn't it mentioned in the prospectus. This should be brought to the attention of ASIC. Or more likely options have been discussed just maybe - as I said, shafting Co's you deal with isn't a good look unless banking is your business.

Talks at the time were around a mine to magnet strategy. (assuming here both parties wanted this). Neither HAS nor NEO were this alone - part of the deal was Wyloo would eventually buy into HAS, so NEO was the focus at the time.
Question is why was the deal done in the form it was. Wyloo could have bought into HAS through a placement on condition HAS spent the proceeds on a NEO stake - that would have required jumping through a few more hoops, and will have diluted everyones HAS shareholding considerably - then we would have seen some crying.
They way it was set up saw greater benefits for HAS holders given Wyloo was eventually to be in at $5.50 + a share as opposed to a discounted placement which would have been well under $4.00. No-one could foresee the fall in RE prices and deteriorating sentiment in renewables in general. If anyone here says they did then why didn't they bail at $5 +. Everything else is 20/20 hindsight. Either you're in or you're out - thats how this CR has been set up.