They could do a milling/shares deal with Kin and then wait four...

They could do a milling/shares deal with Kin and then wait four months, but then because of the 75% rule they would have to get 3/4 of the remaining 10% which might be hard, or expensive. They could do a milling deal with Kin on commercial terms, and then make a second TO offer on the assumption (hope) Kin would no longer be interested in holding DCN shares. Agree if there was an actual quid pro quo agreement would raise the problem of equivalent benefit to other shareholders, me included.

As for grievances ... the court action I was referring to was not about grievances between companies ... good luck with any that tried that ... but in the case where hypothetically directors acted to benefit GMD to the detriment of DCN (not to the detriment of some third party). If DCN directors favoured GMD to the detriment of DCN, shareholders are allowed to act on behalf of the company to sue the directors for failing to fulfil their duty. I am not suggesting DCN directors have acted improperly ... this is all hypothetical. What I am saying is that if directors do not act in the best interests of a company there is a remedy which does not rely on ASIC taking an initiative. The action is in effect the company suing one or more of its directors ... shareholders (say Kin or Delphi) come into only in the sense they are allowed to initiate such action on behalf of the company. The law is in place because there has to be a way for a company to sue its own directors, and clearly the directors themselves are never going to do that.

My understanding. Apologies to actual lawyers.