All in my opinion:
ASIC outcome can potentially make answering that question considerably easier. They will not rely solely on the report of the SPA (McVeigh) but will use it as impetus/a basis for deeper inquiries of their own. ASIC prosecutions usually aid any parallel civil action taken by investors, and retail investors are as equally affected here as the sophs participating in the placement that McVeigh suggests may have been misled. If sophs initiate an action (and this depends on how peeved they might be feeling right now) obviously this is also beneficial as retail might have the opportunity to join. Alternatively a litigation funder may have an interest if the directors pockets are deemed deep enough. The same announcements and reports those sophs relied upon - and their mere participation itself - reassured retail too that the Salt Lake Potash house was in order.
Remember also, the ordinary taxpayer is affected here if sale proceeds don’t recoup loans effectively made by the Govt, so ASIC is pretty much obliged to take a really hard look at this whole fiasco. They still need all the encouragement they can get, imo.
The best thing individual shareholders here can do right now is to clearly articulate complaints about the company and the directors direct to ASIC, and McVeigh’s report included in the Second Report to Creditors (PDF page 89 onwards) is a good start to formulating this.
ASIC needs to know what this has cost you, what statements (and/or omissions) you relied upon, what wider concerns or allegations you may have (e.g. in addition to what was in the McVeigh report), and any other pertinent info you may know about.
Another useful document is the 2 Aug Query letter that ASX “formed the view...should be released to the market” and the matters raised in it that received no response from SO4. KPMG’s role as a consultant & advisor to the board immediately prior to Voluntary Administration (where they were then appointed by those same directors as Administrators & Managers) also raises questions which ASIC no doubt has contemplated in their earlier action to try and prevent the appointment.
ASIC has established channels and processes to receive reports of company & director misconduct and continuous disclosure failures.
You can report & complain here (blue button):
https://asic.gov.au/about-asic/contact-us/how-to-complain/report-misconduct-to-asic/
Again, all of the above is my opinion and not legal or financial advice.
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?