As I said on another thread, the placement to Rich lead has already gone ahead, the money is in the bank (and 1/3rd at least is already out the door).
Resolution 6 needs to be passed in order to free up the capital of the company and give it options.
if Resolution 6 is defeated, the company cannot make any more placements without shareholder approval. This then puts the company in a very inflexible position insofar as it cannot act unilaterally to raise capital or sell equity (even, i presume, as part of a quid pro quo for debt and invoicing relief). Without Resolution 6, the board is forced to do a rights issue, with a Full Prospectus.
This takes time - 6 to 8 weeks, at least. This means, with Resolution 6 defeated,
a) the company must budget all of its cash flows 6-8 weeks in advance, including managing large invoices
b) the company must put in place funding; without a DFS to secure its risk a bank would charge a considerable interest rate
c) if the company has issues with raising the funding (say, due to no underwriting, insufficient take-up) the lights could go off.
It is therefore in the interests of Nev's 50M bloc of 100-odd holders, to vote in FAVOR of Resolution 6.
As i said elsewhere, you should expect another 15% within the remainder of the 12 month period AND expect the rights issue.
Secondly, the rights issue, in requiring a full propseectus, probably requires a full DFS or at least an interim report on it to a scoping study level. I'd say that, given the company is most of the way along, it would be able to get away with a scoping study and some type document. But at this late stage, maybe DFS is all that people will take to accept a risk. Who knows? But I would contend that in fact the rights issue won't go ahead till the DFS is complete.
Thirdly, regarding the director who hasn't attended any meetings (Ma?), the reason he may not be p for re-election could be (depending on the Constitution) a lack of need to be re-elected on rotation.
With 50M shares, Nev and co. if they are dissatisfied with Ma's performance, can impeach him and call for a replacement under the provisions of the Corporations Act. Well, if they get a couple million more votes at any rate. I would think that would be not too hard to get the 3(5?) Amigos to agree to. Nev's group nearly has 20%.
As for the serial dilutions and changes in ownership...well, there's something to be said for just throwing your hands up and offering to sell out of an inevitable situation. 15% has gone to Rich lead, so yeas the others can top up their holdings. The next 15% and then the rights issue after that? You bet that the 3(5?) Amigos may want a piece of the pie and a top-up.
Finally, the Chairman is 30 years old. He's a lawyer with a decade's experience. I wouldn't put too great a degree of faith in a relatively inexperienced person who is doubtless under a huge degree of pressure from his fellow Directors and a rather militant group of shareholders.
The independence of the Directors is assessed on their pecuniary interests in the company and business dealings with the Company. You can still be a shareholder and an independent Director if you or your company doesn't get paid by CDU.
Nev and co. have a very confused strategy, IMO, as outlined by this letter and the associated post on asxinsights. They are just spoiling at the moment, to the limits of what doesn't send the company to the wall. Small shareholders should, I think, consider very carefully whether to side with Nev's group or not, based on whether it has a clear strategy beyond white fright xenophobia of the Chinese taking control.
Expand
they could sell some of the dirt they have dug up an sell it !!
