I disagree. I have 900,000 PGH shares and I certainly do not...

I disagree. I have 900,000 PGH shares and I certainly do not underestimate RG. He is clearly very astute, commercially tough and has very good lawyers. This view is shared by all the large shareholders with whom I have had contact. We are well aware that we have a formidable opponent.

;

As others have said, our sole concern is that he abides by company law, regulations, and principles of good governance. Directors’ duties still apply irrespective of listing status. I and others have written to ASX to voice our objections on these matters.

;

I cannot speak forthe TIC founders but I feel that the decision of the court case is irrelevantto the question of ownership of PGH and a fair price for RG to take out the minoritieswhen and if he wants to do so. NB the trial has been deferred for several months.

;

You mention90%: that number is redundant now. The CA hurdles are (now) much higher than that, whether RG chooses to use s661A or s664A. Please see my earlier post on this.

;

You say “I amalso sure that TIC will not be interested in being a minority holder of anunlisted Public company that Ruffy controls.” That may be true- that is their decision. However, the converse also applies. RG would have good commercial reasons (including tax consolidation, access to PGH cash flow and cost of debt) to want to own 100% of PGH. Having minority shareholders is a problem for him too. For myself, I am happy to wait- a few years if necessary. I believe that the future for PGH is good. RG can stop PGH paying dividends but he would not want PGH to be run badly just to spite the minorities.