Rights Issue Update - ASIC Interim Stop Order, page-81

@Izzy79 stay calm old chap! No, I'm not an excitement-deprived etc., etc. I merely asked a couple of questions in response to Undaunted's calm, factual, documented post of 09-03-2017. Did you read it? Apparently not. Unlike you, I've checked my facts and Undaunted is correct. There IS NO remuneration report in the 2016 Annual Report. Hence, there may be grounds for a prosecution, or at least an official "please explain" under Australian Law. This is not hysteria, just a fact. But it's unlikely to happen unless someone complains.

@ahmes_75 Re: posing questions to the company, do you think I haven't already done so? At first I was ignored. When I persisted, all I got was a brief, condescending pat on the head that didn't clarify anything. Hopefully, others have had more success with their concerns, but if this forum is anything to go by, most people haven't.

@jamesph61 thanks for the references, all of which I will read as soon as I have time. From memory, AVG wasn't a Hong Kong listed company when I bought my first lot of shares, so the rules changed after I entered the race. Unfortunately, I think I must have blinked at the wrong moment, and missed it.

@hot_investor Yes, let us hope indeed! But some enlightened pro-activity before the event might produce a much better end result - for all parties - than an already lost war after the event. RM might be okay, might be doing the best he can with the best of intentions, under adverse conditions, but some explanations, and a lot more transparency would certainly do no harm to the company's image or for shareholders' concerns. ALL OF US who have concerns should be badgering the company with them until we get some unequivocal, clear, satisfactory answers. For its part, the company could do a lot worse than call an extraordinary general meeting on home soil for the specific purpose of answering questions, addressing SHs' concerns, and perhaps even inviting input from the SHs about alternatives for proceeding into the future.

I note with some concern the following summary paragraph from the auditor's report in the 2016 Annual report:
"Without qualifying our opinion, we draw attention to note 2 in the financial statements, which indicate that the Group incurred a net loss of AU$22,072,000 during the year ended 30 September 2016. These conditions, along with other matters as set forth in note 2, indicate the existence of a material uncertainty that may cast significant doubt about the Group's ability to continue as a going concern."

In general:
The company asserted that they were READY to load the first shipload of dirt from Kolosori when the court of appeal torpedoed the mining lease. If it meant the difference between saving the whole project and losing it, is there any reason why aforementioned D6 and tiptruck could not be used to send a shipload off to our buyer in China from San Jorge? We already have the mining licence to do it. Okay, such an action might disrupt a development strategy - which seems doomed to failure anyway - but SO WHAT if it earns even a token amount of actual mining income? It would be a symbolic milestone that would move the whole project from a speculative, cash-strapped exploration exercise to a producing mine. This difference would not be lost on potential backers, or the share price. If I was drowning, I would not reject a life-saving lungful of air because it did not smell as fresh as I would like it to. Conventional methods and compliances don't count for much when your survival is at stake.

multiple closing grunts...