Stuart Roberts, page-26

G'day Semi,

The scenario you suggest would be infinitely preferable to the Ridgeback deal, no question about it. I'd vote for that in a heartbeat if it were put to shareholders. The question is, could the company find a broker prepared to fully underwrite it? If not, there's a risk of not raising the cash required to fund development. Even if it's fully underwritten, but the broker wound up having to take up a large quantity of shares, they'd be dumping them at the first opportunity to recoup their cash.

Remembering that the directors have pretty big stakes, they'll want to structure a deal that results in the minimum dilution to their holdings too. It's a cardinal responsibility of all company directors to act in the best interests of shareholders. If a better deal can be found, they are duty bound to recommend it. So what to do?

As I've commented previously, it's surprising to me that we've yet to receive the notice of meeting for the EGM. Makes me wonder if there isn't something going on behind the scenes, possibly to find a way to make the deal less dilutive.