Originally posted by SirInvestsALot
Bas, very many readers and posters on this forum (and others, I note), really do appreciate your style and nous. Pay no attention or take to personal task the observation that some of the past 24hrs has read a little like a school yard squabble. It does. But not because of anything that you're contributing, more the reaction that it's provoking in some hearts.
You're cool.
BTW, still unclear as to the 2cent multimillion share allocation waiver thing. Was there a typo, or does it read as it stands? With all the banter last night, the official verdict may have gone straight over my head, or maybe it hasn't been satisfactorily addressed yet?
Best wishes to all.
SIA
Thanks SIA - appreciate your considerate and kind words.
I actually put a lot of effort into my posts to ensure accuracy and probity. I am not sure why people don't take advantage of 'free stuff'. I would and I do. They don't have to act on anything that any poster notes - just read, contemplate and draw their personal conclusions and demonstrate some basic civility. Surely, that's not an insurmountable task? Admittedly, I have also transgressed into the impolite arena - so I work towards improving that aspect of my posting.
I do find the "
down ramping" stuff very amusing and bewildering. Seriously, if a poster manipulate the SP on any share (let alone one that hasn't traded in months) by posting commentary on HC, then they would be geniuses - something which I am far from being. Do people really believe that stuff? Or, is it just a way of dismissing unpopular / unwanted points of view?
I honestly find it very difficult to believe that anyone old enough to buy shares would take that stuff seriously! Conspiring ominous beings hiding in the shadows on every corner just to mug and relieve unsuspecting mum and dad holders of their shares - no surely not!
Anyway, let's move onto the second point in your post - a point that I think has much merit and is worth pursuing.
Your Question
"
BTW, still unclear as to the 2cent multimillion share allocation waiver thing. Was there a typo, or does it read as it stands? With all the banter last night, the official verdict may have gone straight over my head, or maybe it hasn't been satisfactorily addressed yet?"
I think that is a very important issue and one that holders and potential investors ought to pursue - if only to secure their own interests.
I put that issue to Neil yesterday. I had a very specific reason for doing so.
Here are the questions and some of the preamble that I put to Neil yesterday
re the waiver granted by the ASX to QBL on Listing Rule 14.7.
Preamble to My Post 37122083
(I have reformatted some parts to aid easy reading)
"Let's re-read that paragraph (d).
"
(D) Grants a waiver of listing rule 14.7 to the extent necessary to permit the issue of:
(i) A minimum of 57,000,000 Shares and a maximum of 170,000,000 Shares at an issue price of $0.02 each under the Capital Raising Offer;"
Given what you have posted, can you please confirm the purpose of part (i) of the waiver?
It is very difficult to accept that, "...
the wording required with ASX technical Listing releases can be difficult to understand and interpret" is the explanation for that particular condition.
Even if it was, "...
difficult to understand and interpret" is it good practice to simply wave away legitimate concerns with that kind of response?
In my opinion, there is nothing difficult or technical in that part of that particular waiver (i.e. paragraph (d), (i) of Annexure A). Nothing difficult or technical whatsoever!
My Questions to Neil
Q1. Was the waiver sought by QBL as part of the discussions or correspondence regarding reinstatement to the ASX?
Q2. Or, was the waiver referred to simply inserted by the ASX independent of any discussions or correspondence regarding QBL's reinstatement to the ASX and,
Q3. Can the BOD confirm why that waiver that is noted in Annexure A will not be relied upon under this and that they do not intend to offer shares for $0.02c under this CR?"
Now, I could be mistaken here (it wouldn't be the first time) but here's how I imagine things might work when communicating and or discussing complying with this listing rule and all of the attendant conditions with the ASX.
Facts Known (Annexure A)
"(D) Grants a waiver of listing rule 14.7 to the extent necessary to permit the issue of:
(i) A minimum of 57,000,000 Shares and a maximum of 170,000,000 Shares at an issue price of $0.02 each under the Capital Raising Offer;"
Briefly listing rule states that if an entity states that it will do something in a notice of a meeting then it must do that thing.
So ... the question that follows, in my opinion, is;
if QBL made an application to the ASX to be granted a waiver by the ASX to listing rule 14.7 - why did they do so?
Reasonable Assumptions
1. ASX requires compliance with all listing rules - are we all agreed?
2. All publicly listed companies know, or ought to know, that they are required to comply with the all of the ASX listing rules to be on or reinstated to the official ASX list - are we all agreed?
3. Listing Rule 14.7 deals with compliance re company General Meetings (e.g. like the kind to vote and agree upon share issues and CR's) - are we all agreed? see p.1404 :
https://www.asx.com.au/documents/rules/Chapter14.pdf
4. Further, the ASX requires entities to
make an application for waivers.
Applications for waivers
Listings Compliance processes applications for waivers of the ASX listing rules and the ASX operating rules governing the quotation of warrants and AQUA products.
Listing Rules Guidance Note 17 Waivers and in Principle Advice: has further information on how to apply for a waiver of the listing rules, while ASX Operating Rules Guidance Note 4 Waivers and In-Principle Advice has further information on how to apply for a waiver of the operating rules governing the quotation of warrants and AQUA products.
(source)
https://www.asx.com.au/regulation/compliance/listings.htm
Q. Did QBL make such an application for the waiver granted and if so, why?
Hence my original questions (see above).
Neil's Response 37130723
The response from Neil I thought was not convincing. It contained, when referencing the 0.02c share issue, what I would read as a disclaimer, of sorts!
"
Regarding the question about the waivers:
The waiver was pursuant to the re-compliance, that the ASX grants a waiver to issue shares at less than 20c. This waiver is necessary to enable the issue of the shares under the prospectus, there is no provision in the prospectus or in the re-compliance to issue shares at 2c, or at any other price not set out in the prospectus.
Please watch for further announcements and updates as we move closer to January 25." (my bold)
The bolded sentence is the sentence that, I think, can be read as a disclaimer. In common terms - it is the sentence that provides some '
wriggle room' at a future point in time.
Now ... if the ...
(a) granting of a waiver
to sell a minimum of 57,000,000 Shares and a maximum of 170,000,000shares at 0.02c +
(b) questions regarding the
rationale for the granting of that waiver +
(c) Neil's response +
(d) the fact that the ASX
requires companies to apply for waivers to the conditions of its Listing Rules,
is not enough to pique your interest and generate further enquiry then that's ok with me!
But given those facts, I think that some on this thread ought to refrain from rushing to denigrate the genuine efforts and research of some posters whether those posters are holders or otherwise!
Can we agree on that - at least (not you referring to you SIA)?
Just my views.
