All this in my personal opinion only. Am not a legal eagle. Just...

All this in my personal opinion only. Am not a legal eagle.
Just a very disheartened shareholder.

There are probably 3 groups involved in this fiasco.
- MIN
- Non-MIN shareholders
- Directors of EGO
(maybe also Alcoa somewhere in all of this?)

There are some really very basic factors at play.
1. the RG asset was the jewel within EGO. It provided the cash flow and lifeline to EGO, and repaid MIN.
2. the suspension of the well ceased cashflow to EGO, and maybe put Alcoa contract at risk (and maybe default?)
3. EGO was well advanced (pun) in attempting to return flow to RG-1 and also get RG-N flowing
4. the return of gas flows of those wells was critical
5. the appointment of the Receiver by MIN interrupted, and may have caused vital delays and damage to the attempt by EGO to return the wells to flow.
6. depending upon various factors, we may well find that these events render the shares in EGO as worthless. Without cashflow, and without raising further equity funds, we may find that EGO is placed into Administration. Because virtually all the decent permits are held within the Borrower, EGO-WA, which is on the hook for the $15m plus interest/costs etc.

7. hence that appointment of the Receiver by MIN may well cause the total collapse of EGO, and the complete loss of our investment?

I presume that the "Event of Default" declared by MIN was not a Financial default, because there was no indication from EGO.
So the appointment of Receiver by MIN must have been based on some other subjective cause?

Depending on the circumstances (which we s/h are unaware of) we might find that the actions of MIN in appointing that receiver, was unwarranted and unnecessary, and may well have caused damage to EGO and its shareholders.

Now that an Administrator has been appointed to the Borrower EGO-WA, it will be up to him, and EGO, to ascertain the basis and legality of the appointment of the receiver, and to take any action if appropriate.

There are other issues which warrant investigation here.

Given the position of the Administrator, and the probable paucity of funds within EGO, and the lack of confidence in the board of EGO, it may well be appropriate for shareholders themselves to consider looking after their own interests for a change. Because we have got to this point as a result of relying on the EGO Board to do the job!

And importantly, we may well find that the board of EGO have some explaining to do, and thus may be found to have some conflicts in some matters. Yet to be determined.

Ergo the reason for this post:
1. we non-MIN shareholders should form a like-minded group in readiness to consider our position at some point,
2. in readiness to seek independent advice as to our position.

IMHO:
1. the ONLY parties who will wholly look after the interests of non-MIN shareholders 100%, are us !
2. if this turns into the s...fight that I expect it will, the only people who will seek recompense for non-MIN shareholders is us
3. ALL non-MIN shareholders are in the same boat. Big and small !!
4. as time progresses,  we may find conflicts of interest with board - only time will tell. Note: the CEO is not a board member.