Please read the judgment: http://decisions.justice.wa.gov.au/supreme/supdcsn.nsf/PDFJudgments-WebVw/2007WASC0092/$FILE/2007WASC0092.pdf
20 In preventing a successful party from immediately enjoying the fruits of its judgment, the Court must ensure that if an appeal is ultimately dismissed there will be fruit to pick; it will not have all been eaten.
23 IFCA has imposed time limits on the subscription, as it is entitled to do. IFCA HAS DECLINED to provide much financial information, as it is also quite entitled to do. This of course is not IFCA's application but Chemeq's. As a result of IFCA's decisions, however, Chemeq has been unable to secure the bondholders' agreement. The variation would otherwise greatly affect the status quo pending the resolution of the appeal and I therefore dismiss the application.
Optimix, what did McKechnie J said at 20 and 23? Did he say "Quoting Optimix: The company did supply the financial information sought. The cash was not at that stage in the Chemeq account. That was the reason for the court not granting a variation to the staus quo".
Optimix implies McKecnie J lied IFCA HAS DECLINED to provide much financial information.
David Williams insulted shareholders by asking them to speculate why the bondholders objected to CMQ application. David Williams think shareholders are too stupid to read and understand the judgment.
CMQ Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Not Held
