PRW's prospectus dated 17 January 2012 states "All Directors have stated that they intend to take up their full Entitlement under the Offer".
Even more worrisome was the Chairman (Ian Campbell)'s letter stating "that each of the Director's will fully take up their respective entitlements". Interestingly Ian Campbell was not obliged to take up any of the issue because he isn't a shareholder.
It also says that the Directors remuneration in 2010 was $1,409,623 and for 2011 was $916,913.
What the...
Based on their holdings as listed on page 21 in the entitlement prospectus, their relevant take ups of 0.4c options should have been:
Andrew Mortimer - 12,301,309 for $49,205.24 Lia Darby - 2,444,414 for $9,777.66 Ian Campbell - $0 Greg Mellick - 1,005,315 for $4,021.26 Kay Philip - 1,421,459 for $5,685.84
Their take ups to date: Andrew Mortimer - 0 for $0 Lia Darby - 0 for $0 Ian Campbell - $0 Greg Mellick - 917,399 for $3,669.60 Kay Philip - 800,000 for $3,200.00
So, all the directors have reneged on their promise to take up their full entitlement (except Ian Campbell).
They have chipped in a total of $6,869.60. Obviously big believers in the Company's future.
This begs the question of whether those who did take up their entitlements are now entitled to ask for their money back, based on the fact that the prospectus was misleading.
I suspect that AM/LD may yet "take up" their entitlements using the shortfall offer (and perhaps through his OVERPAYMENT - see earlier post), but lets be clear, if they do this, it will not be under the Offer, because the Offer Closing Date was 21 February 2012.
I'd be worried if I were a shareholder.
PRW Price at posting:
2.1¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Not Held
