I've written to ASIC.Their initial reply is that they are...

I've written to ASIC.

Their initial reply is that they are looking into the matter.

I will get a full response within 28 days.

Has anyone else taken this further?

I think the offer document was unclear and in some places contradictory.

For example, the term "Shortfall Offer" was not defined.

Here is the full text of my message to ASIC:

"I am writing about the recent rights issue by Australasian Wealth Investments (AWK).
The non-renounceable rights issue took place in Oct 2013. The "offer document" (which was pointedly "not a prospectus") was quite normal, except it gave AWK the right to place shares with "sophisticated investors" (hereinafter SIs) in case of a shortfall of applications (the issue was not underwritten).
What it did *not* mention (but which appeared on the offer and acceptance form) was that shareholders could apply for shares over and above their rights. Since this was not mentioned in the offer document, is that allowed? And how is it policed?
I applied for ~10 times my rights and received no extra shares. Then the shortfall� was placed (at a higher price) with SIs.
AWK claimed this was a due to the lack of applications from shareholders. Can they claim this when many shareholders applied for these extra shares and were not allocated any? Surely a shortfall could be declared only after all applications from shareholders had been satisfied?
The way this rights issue was conducted is opaque to me. The option to apply for extra shares should have been explained in the offer document. The document should have set out rules for allocation and the order of priority of allocation.
I have been cheated as AWK held onto my money ($70,000) for several weeks; therefore I was inconvenienced and lost interest. In addition, I should have been given preferential application over the SIs as I applied via the issue itself, not afterwards. I think AWK had no intention of allocating shares to us - this was just a second backup option in case the SIs didn't take up the shares offered to them.

NB A group of SIs was granted a huge number of shares at the rights issue price earlier this year. At that time existing shareholders were not invited to subscribe. Perhaps their buying shares at a higher price now was a quid pro quo for their preferential treatment at that time?".