All A40 sgx / asx shareholders
we are staring in the face of Opportunity it is very important as share holders we unite and demonstrate our Will and very importantly our Attitude and good intentions to the Supreme Court and Alita’s Creditors. The current DOCA is not said and done unless we give them CONSENT or the courts give LEAVE in the absence of consent of shareholders.
I understand that all share holders have various levels of exposure to your investment and some may accept their investment is not worth pursuing or do not want to contribute to legal fees and just will free ride the process.
In all fairness to all the contributors they should not bear the cost for the good will and efforts of the committed to save Alita Resource. Orders from the court should be requested to balance the cost the contributing members on a successful outcome to reimburse part off.
The fear of cost or we will fail is insignificant as we work as a group amongst us we have a wealth of Knowledge with various back grounds of engineering, IT, construction, Mining and Commercial Lawyers (I am sure I have missed some) and Engauge the law firm for advice on the best way to look at representing us in the Supreme Court of western Australia.
We can’t rely on the class action law firms as they may move to slow or may not want to represent the s444ga which is probable.
Most class action law firms will assess the claim and arrange their own pool of funding like compensation law firms that offer their services they will always be paid, and the balance is yours. This will be similar for the people chasing damages the law firms will not work for nothing. Most of the time in these larger firm you may not be dealing with a partner (being one of the owners) in a firm.
The people seeking compensation, I agree that would be a good route and you will get what you pay for, but we have the goal of saving the company
Guy Douglas is a Partner in the Firm and is prepared to help in the s444ga appose.
The law firm has already made a proposal and on how to divide the cost based on shareholding. We can also request it to be divided by the number of committed shareholders contributing if that is a fair and even outcome for a smaller group.
“My rateis $495 per hour (including GST). Iexpect that it would take at least 10-20 hours to provide you with initialadvice about the case, depending on the volume and complexity of the backgroundfacts. Accordingly, we would require anupfront payment of $10,000 into our trust account for the first stage. This is an estimate, not a lump sum, so if itis simpler than I expect, some of this money might be returned to you.”
The points below clearly demonstrate that the shareholders have a good chance and we will need the best advice from a legal mind and the best way to approach and take advantage for us to win
1. The attitude of the existing shareholders to providing the capital contributions
The attitude of the existing shareholders to providing the capital contributions by which the shares may obtain some value or by which the company may continue in existence (Lewis, Re Diverse Barrel Solutions PtyLtd (2014) FCA 53) where regard to the following was seen to be relevant.
1. DoCA provides that the Deed Administrators may convene a meeting of creditors and the creditors can vote on the future of the Group again.
Quoted(Report by Administrators 9 December 2019; 6: Proposed Deed of CompanyArrangement. Pg 39)
“Any delay in the effectuationof the DoCA and subsequently the receipt of stockpiles into the Stockpile
Creditors’ Trust by the Trustees will cause an equivalentdelay in a distribution to creditors.
In circumstances where completion cannot occur, eitherbecause:
1. The Court does not approve the 444GA application totransfer 100% of Alita shares to Liatam
2. FIRB approval not granted
3. Other conditions precedent unable to satisfied
the DoCA provides that the Deed Administrators mayconvene a meeting of creditors and the creditors can vote on the future of theGroup again”.
Below is the what we need to satisfy the courts topoppose the 444ga
The notion of unfair prejudice was usefully reviewed by the Court in Lewis, Re Diverse Barrel Solutions Pty Ltd (2014) FCA 53 where regard to the following was seen to be relevant:
\ Whether the shares have any residual value which may be lost to the existing shareholders if leave is granted.
This enquiry as to residual value will usually consider the position of shareholders in the event of winding up and the likelihood of a return on their shares in those circumstances.
\ Whether there is a prospect of the shares obtaining some value within a reasonable time.
\ The steps or measures necessary before the prospect of the shares attaining value may be realized.
\ The attitude of the existing shareholders to providingthe capital contributions by which the shares may obtain some value or by whichthe company may continue in existence.
In the absence of statutory attempts to define “unfairly prejudicial”, it is understandable that the courts have relied on guidelines of the kind arising in the DBS decision.
Additional considerations where a listed company, or unlisted company with more than 50 members is involved
With respect to companies to which Chapter 6, Corporations Act applies (a listed company or one with more than 50 shareholders) questions have arisen as to whether compulsory acquisition of shares under s 444GA interacts with the 20% prohibition (takeovers prohibition) that applies to such companies by virtue of s 606, Corporations Act. With respect to companies to which Chapter 6, Corporations Act applies (a listed company or one with more than 50 shareholders) questions have arisen as to whether compulsory acquisition of shares under s 444GA interacts with the 20%
We will need legal advice on the following arguments
• Korda Mentha taking out the loan they incurred an additional potential debt or "break fee" of about $10m to Liatom whilst not being a registered company
• Other parties, such as creditors, really have no obligations to shareholders" but in our case as some creditors were also major shareholders
• The concept of "relevant interest" is defined in ss608 and 609
• shareholders lose their capacity to bring derivative action in the name of A40 for their losses.
• DoCA or the way Korda Mentha valuation of Alita, the way the debt has almost doubled under their administration or the way that JBJ who caused the collapse of Alita could join in as creditors
• Korda Mentha has entered a DOCA with and entity at the time does not comply with FIRB
• Korda Mentha paragraph 1.12 states “we have not identified any material (in the context of administration) recovery acts that may be available in a liquidation scenario and detail limited potential in section 4 of this report.
The whole purpose of us uniting is to bring the cost down and the lawof averages will always work. Please make the effort and say No to the DOCA and Register lets work together and bring Alita Resource back to the shareholders Many Thanks Maurice Milana
