shareholders stop complaining, page-24

Hi Joecar,

You seem to have good insight in some of your comments, and so I have a couple of questions. Please read these as genuine –no undercurrent or malice whatsoever.

1. As shareholders, do we really care if a different institution ends up with a controlling interest (if our shares are not diluted)?

2. No one seems concerned that shareholders interest in the company will be less, for what reasons should shareholders be concerned, if another entity’s interest will be greater?

3. Wouldn't a decision that places controlling interest above shareholder dilution be synonymous with the board protecting its own interests at shareholder expense?

I can understand that this current plan may have been the best option for management to pursue at the time, given the urgency, and the need to entice an entity to back the entire cap raising. I also understand that management would be legally bound to the 1,350 Mil assuming shareholder consent.
....................BUT THE SITUATION FOR AIO HAS NOW CHANGED:

a) The first 1,000 Mil is underwritten and guaranteed, and
b) The offer of underwriting the remaining 1,350 Mil is guaranteed (subject to SH approval).

This means that the risk profile of AIO has ALREADY reduced significantly.

4. With this in mind, is it really in the shareholders (as opposed to the board) interest to accept this sellof and further dilution AT THIS POINT IN TIME?

Considering the above enormous vote of confidence in AIO, AND there seems to be a general consensus that the global market situation is unlikely to retrace back to the days of despair and is generally improving.

5. Considering the above, why wouldn’t shareholders be better off considering other more equitable (and less diluting) options at this point in time?

Options such as: a) The additional 1,350 Mil could be offered to shareholders first, and the balance to the various corporate and special investors pro-rata.
6. Why should they get first bite?
b) Assuming debt covenants would not be breached:
7. Why not examine the issue of the 1,350M raising in 6 or 12 months time, when the likelihood of an increased SP would probably allow a more equitable renounceable cap raising –and probably be able to reduce debt even further?

Would appreciate your thoughts (and the thoughts of others) regarding these questions.

Regards,

John S.