meanwhile in the overland cockpit...., page-29

He is a finance guy which could carry risk for some shareholders when it comes to 'financial engineering' that some finance guys are so fond of. But dont think he has a history one way or another.

While a company the size of OVR cannot justify 4 directors I think most are happy to see Glencore are still engaged in the companies future. Possibly MQG voted against appontment in last AGM, but they haven't engaged or communicated with other shareholders as far as I am aware so who knows what their motive is. They are the ones most at risk as they are maxed out at 20% so a dilution to another party will decimate them. Curiously I suspect from the numbers they voted for an increase in the placement, but that may be because there is a plan to do a low ball pro-rata placement?
They last purchased stock around 5c and Glencore havent lifted a finger on market, so they are probably keen for a low ball placement, although it doesn't make ANY sense to do a placement (dilution or pro-rata) when there is absolutely NO VALUE accorded to the company, but I expect I am the only fool to see that. Management must be getting concerned about where the money will be coming from for their fees, and I expect MH is correct: there will be 'no problem' securing funding. I mean if you discount an asset by enough and undercut other shareholders it is ALWAYS possible to raise more capital. With ZERO value accorded to that $1.6b asset I am sure they will have 'no problem' selling a short term gain to the next lot of investors for a fistful of dollars. The big question is... will that project EVER get up while owned by Overland?

With Zinc running I am sure there are plenty of knocks on the door from the likes of Blackrock who are seeking to supply funds, and the action that management take when faced with a mountain of money on the one hand and a register full of shareholders that have been wiped out on the other, will be telling.