Is 21.5 cents the lowest under SPP?, page-37

So when the issue was 'announced' and when it will be 'made' is key.

Yes.

Wrongly or rightly, many will interpret the announced issue date for the SPP formally being 19 April when the actual SPP booklet was released. REdo your VWAP workings on that basis. Very loosely, lets theoretically say $0.215 looking at the prices (not accurate, just a rough figure), then the price limited to $0.172.

I think the announced issue date has to be the first time the issue was announced on the ASX - which is 6 April - see above post 67584996 with ASX announcements.

I don't think formally announced (later - the 19th) and informally announced (earlier - the 6th April) can actually be a meaningful distinction because when an announcement goes to the ASX its formal enough - the whole market is deemed to have had access to it - and also the institutions had access to the structure of the raising in the presentation material which some like protagoras posted to this forum about - so some saw most of the details of the SPP after 3rd April during a trading halt over 4 and 5 April.

Truss20's short post emphasizing the word OR did cause me to revisit to see his point of view.

The entirety of Exception 5 in rule 7.2 isn't all that long. You've included it all as an excerpt in your above post.

This is its essential structure -
---------------------------------------------------------
Exception 5 is only available .. if;
1 number of +securities to be issued is not greater than 30% of fully paid ordinary shares already
and
2
the issue price of the securities is at least either
A or B.
-------------------------------------------------------
Truss20 stresses the or between A or B.

A is "80% of the VWAP (5 days) before day issue announced"
That is 21.3 rounded to 21.5 cents. (Using 80% of 0.267 (being 5 day VWAP to ann of 6Apr)

B will be "80% of the VWAP (May 1 to May 5) leading to May 8 - the day issue is made."
That's too be determined - we could call it X or say guess its 17.5 cents say.

Looking at just 2 we'd have
"the issue price of the securities is at least either 21.5 or (say 17.5)"

2 could be satisfied if "at least (say 17.5)"

So why did they bother with the reference to Rule 7,2 Exception 5 at all? Why add those words if they weren't doing anything?

Because, (1) is doing something that is an additional restriction perhaps.

+securities is a defined term as per ASX chapter 19 Interpretions and definitions. It picks
up not just fully paid ordinary shares but also options.

30% of fully paid ordinary shares (as at 6th April) would be 30% of 143 million odd shares.
If CYP had already used 15% issuing capacity to the instos and given them 1 option for every two shares they already used 15+7.5 = 22.5 % of the fully paid shares already. So only 7.5% of the 143million remains under 1 in Exemption 5.

That's 10.7 million shares. 1 under Exemption 2 is capping the total number of shares and options to 30%. Out of the 10.7 million securities (shares and options) a third of those are intended to be options. So only around 7.2 million shares remain to be able to be purchased under the 30% securities.

The SPP has a $2m cap. Holders can take up to 30K maximum per any one holder in parcels. That's about 67 lots of the maximum parcel size to get $2m.

At sufficiently low share prices it seems quite possible that 67 shareholders taking up the $30k parcel choice (or twice as many at half that etc) could end up exceeding the number of shares and options such that more than 30% of the securities (under 1 in Exemption 5) would be required.

Here are some share prices and some parcel sizes for 30K parcels
0.215 139,535
0.210 142,857
0.195 153,846
0.190 157,895
0.185 162.162
0.180 166.667
0.175 171,429
0.170 176,471
0.165 181,812
0.160 187,500

If 67 holders took up the 30K parcel option at say 18cents - they'd each be getting 166,667
shares - that's 11,166,552 shares (which is more shares than remains to be made available
under Exemption 5 point 1 (relating to 30% (if the other Placement and options etc are associated)).

Apologies for the long windedness - it comes down to essentially, maybe Exception 5 of rule 7.2 is referenced because its first point not its second point is potentially restrictive.

Maybe. I'm not really satisfied I've nailed this. But I'm kind of over it. I do have a sort of explanation for why exception 5 was added as a proviso now (the 30% can be restrictive). It does seem plausible that Truss20's suggestion that the OR works to be satisfied by the lower of A or B is right.

Thank you bedger and truss20.