scheme voting, page-61

Hi Jake,

The way they are doing it, is it all very legal because, if it didn't it wouldn't go past the first post.

As for the dividing of shares, I suppose you know about share lending and the way it operates. Believe me, having learnt a very costly lesson, (extremely costly I should say), and not because I was doing the shorting myself because I never did any whatsoever myslef, but because as it cost me so much money I went through the strictest research ever possible to find out how it can really operates while of course, being all legal at the same times. As such, and with that sad and sorry experience under my belt, I now know what I am talking about it in this matter.
Now, and in regard to Deutsche and other Financial Institutions willing to do so, they can lend shares to a multitude of different entities and those entities can do what they like with the shares they have borrowed from the willing lender, once they've borrowed them.
Reason being that once those entities borrowed those shares, they in fact will become the nominees/holders of those shares, with the result that where we had a single holders with say 5 million shares could turn into 50 holders of 100k shares each and with each and everyone having a say in the votes proceedings. And with that in mind, in the case of a SoA the number of voters, is the crunch of the whole issue, which in turn, will also keep the same amount of shares voted for the resolution when the 75% of the total shares voted is needed to complete the job. How do you think the shorting would work if there wasn't the borrowing of shares available to them ??

Besides, where do you think that Deutsche came up, (when needed of course as it seems to be their speciality), with that endless list of different nominees accounts. And why was it that, like the NAB did when AOE was successfully taken over by Shell/Petrochina, they were in and out constantly from the Substantial Holder's List.

Now, if you are a Substantial Holder and have notified the ASX as such, the only way it would change your status (Please note that this only applies during a T/O or a SoA), would be:

1) If you are selling out or reducing your stake altogether,
2) if you are constantly lending shares and getting them back as part and parcel of you tactice,
3) or if your final intentions are to manipulate the market.

Now, is that all legal ?? You tell me. But apparently ASIC and the ASX think that it is by allowing it to go on unabated.

So Jake, I will repat what I said above once again. And that is, that although we may be thinking of it being illegal, ASIC and the ASX doesn't seem to think so. Or if they do, they don't seem to give a hoot at what is going on under their noses while we are getting fleeced.

Don't ever forget tha main basis/rules that applies to the sharemarket. And that is, that the big end of Town, with their very deep pockets and the means to be doing so, while unfortunately for us shareholders, they will always win.

One more thing for posters here to consider now. And to me this is very important indeed. Why do you think that the company is doing the ringing around constantly in order to find out if a particular shareholder will vote in favour or not of the resolution ?? Think about it and think very hard. Because the whole issue is right in there.

Regards