I spoke with GPPs listing manager, she said that removing unmarketable parcels would not effect the liquidity requirements of GPP as they are not (cannot) be considered a salable parcel anyway.
So, it appears to me that management have 2 issues with Mr Lambs direction:
1). the removal of minority share holders will force the company to delist.
This is absolutely wrong! As puss pointed out, after listing, a company only needs 50 share holders
2). Doing an in species distribution will mean that GPP will not be able to draw on funds when they are needed.
This is false for two reasons:
Firstly, GPP already showed they would prefer to sell shares at a discount to their mates, than draw on their reserves. Had management been looking out for our best interests, they would have sold some ATR instead of selling GPP shares to Astron.
Secondly, if a project has promise there is rarely a problem raising debt or new equity. Given managements track record for 'creating share holder wealth', I'd rather I chose when to sell Astron, rather than rely on GPP to decide on my behalf (the recommendation from Mr Lamb was an inspecies distribution, not a sale). The only reason to hold onto the ATR shares is if management have no faith in their current projects, and simply want to protect their jobs and salaries.
I'm a little confused as to why Management felt it necessary to draft a 17 page response to 2 page submission (which they hid on pages 17-19). Seems to me that the directors think they can keep blowing smoke...
One other thing, if the constitution states that directors over 72 must go up for re-election at each AGM, doesnt that mean that Alan should have been put up for reelection at the last meeting. I dont recall any mention of that at the last AGM. Look out for another resolution to vote on come March.
GPP Price at posting:
4.6¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
