What a frantic way for Priority One to end the year. Good on...

What a frantic way for Priority One to end the year.

Good on them if a trust is able to attract "short-term funding of at least $750,000", as Badeye123 reports is stated  in a letter to shareholders. This funding, they say, will be sufficient to support the company to meet all existing and ongoing commitments for a period of at least 12-months.

Surely that sum, and its purpose, is irrelevant to the question of listing on the ASX. True, the sum might be fine to keep P1 as a going concern if it were already listed on the ASX. But it in no way goes towards what is required in order to list in the first place.

As I mentioned in a previous post, my understanding of the ASX listing rules  is that P1, in its application for listing, would have to show something along these lines:

1. a few hundred investors that have put in money to buy shares at $2.00.

2. a profit of  $1 million over the past 3 years.

3. $3 million in net tangible assets. or a $10 million market capitalisation.

One brief look at P1's balance sheets for 2013 and 2014 shows that P1 does not look like a candidate for listing.

Then there is the question of P1 getting rid of associated companies that have failed in the delivery of services or products specified under contract. JCD's post comments on the application of this statement to GCN derived shares. I think he is correct. In fact I thought these deals with a hotchpotch of companies also required P1 to list on the ASX - an action that P1 has repeatedly failed to accomplish. Contracts require two entities, so the phrase 'the pot calling the kettle black' comes to mind. Perhaps this failure explains P1's current frantic moves to get listed.

By the way, does the letter specifically state that GCN derived shareholders might not have been entitled to their P1 shares in the first place? I read JCD's post as implying that is in the letter, but maybe he was does generalising to GCN derived shareholders.

Finally, why is the meeting on 14th January 2015 being  held to consider the 2013 (and not the 2014) financial report? Presumably P1 did not get its act together for 2013. When will they call the AGM to consider the 2014 financial report?

Remember that this is a company where the auditors were unable to get the information they needed to express an opinion on the financial reports for 2013 and 2014. See the final page on the report  that is relevant to those GCN derived shareholders attending the meeting.

http://tinyurl.com/ot8uo2h
+
The notice for the AGM says sharfeholders who do not understand the notice should consult their stockbroker, solicitor, accountant or other professional adviser. I suggest that anyone trying to understand what is going on should subsequently consult their psychiatrist.

ASX - here we come! I doubt it.