Pact is significantly undervalued. If not for the major...

Pact is significantly undervalued. If not for the major shareholder’s 88% stake, his track record, the recent delisting announcement, and the psychological impact of the previous offer, the shares would be trading significantly higher and attracting institutional interest.

I fully agree that Pact should not be permitted to delist from the ASX as per the points already highlighted. Delisting from the ASX isn’t even logical, as it won’t simplify compulsory acquisition. It seems ego may be influencing the decision, as it did during the takeover attempt.

A more rational and business savvy approach would be to stay listed and negotiate directly with the largest minority holders. The TIC proceedings could also be resolved in parallel, allowing Ruffy to focus on, and benefit from, Pact’s long-term value and synergies with his other business interests. Effectively combining both items, would result in significant savings for Ruffy but that's exactly why I feel that the decisions have been ego driven.

I have absolutely no intention to sell other than if a fair takeover offer is received otherwise I’m happy to hold and continue to accumulate based on how undervalued the business is and future potential. My decision is based entirely on my assessment of intrinsic value. I’m also aware of friends and family who are considering buying for the first time.

Williamteddy and others have highlighted that there are over 1,600 holders, with more than 1,000 owning marketable parcels. Actual figures are likely higher due to nominee structures.

If delisted, maintaining more than 100 shareholders ensures Pact remains an "unlisted disclosing entity," subject to ongoing disclosure obligations. This is one area where all shareholders can help; the greater the number of holders the better.

The Business Update was also positive and the business continues to trend in the right direction.