Good thoughts mooseybut a compulsory acquisition means what it...

Good thoughts moosey

but a compulsory acquisition means what it says - remaining holders are compelled by law to sell their holding for a reasonable price

--- my concern is now with GEM, who we know have an arrangment whereby they can easily short the SP over a prolonged period of time

- this shorting only enables through that process for GEM to accumulate a vast amount of additional shares via an unnaturally depressed SP, but it also enables them to accumulate from tired smaller holders at the artifically depressed SP they manipulate via shorting - in the process, not only does GEM's percentage ownership artifically accelerate, but it accelerates more due to 'standard' purchases at artifically low SPs along the way - if that pattern is maintained for a sufficiently long enough period of time, they could possibly achieve an outcome where they acquire sufficient shares to invoke compulsory takeover provisions, and those left standing are at first instance, asked to hand-over their shares based on a historically low (and artifically depressed) SP

- of course someone like me, if they found themselves asked to sell at an manipulated SP, would take (say) GEM to the Federal or Supreme Court to obtain a Declaration that the market had been manipulated, where the Court would be asked to arrive at a fair value of my shares, in light of the true value of the technology and it's associated IP

- all very hypothetical, but of course where MST is concerned, nothing is surprising given the multi-billion dollar contracts reasonably expected to flow from this technology

- clearly some very stiff questions need to be asked of this current Board at the meeting seeking Our Approval - at least that way they will be on record, and therefore open to liability should matters fall foul later

- also care needs to be taken to see that the Board adequately answers all questions of concern at the meeting - if it doesn't, then Corporations Law provisions need to be invoked there and then for blocking any vote being taken, or at least postponing the vote until all concerns are unequivocally addressed - if they are not, then resort can always be made for seeking a same day injunction from the Supreme Court of Queensland, preventing the company from proceeding with any vote

- needless to say I have plenty of legal exprience which I do hope the company does not try to test - but of course, we shall see

- there was a time when shorting was all about idetifying the bad fundamentals of a company that the rest of the investment community was either ignoring, or was not aware of - such shorting was in order to see a SP properly deserved by a company, instead of some over-inflated SP

-- we don't have that problem with MST as the technology is proven - the only thing we are waiting to see is which of military complex is going to end-up owning the rivers of money that will eventually flow from this technology

- until then, all shorting of this SP is totally artifical, and can only be described as pure market manipulation -- if a greedy few end-up taking us all down that road, then it will see this company bound-up in very lengthy litigation, and all the discovery that goes along with that

- so I do hope the greedier children who own (and those who wish to own) this stock simply behave

Good luck