The Next 90 Days, page-31

Norway lets not forget that the skullduggerous coup was implemented in a potential breach of listing rule 10.11.3 and that neither ASX nor in house legal counsel has addressed this.
What was done meets the conditions to be considered a breach and there are other examples of this on the ASX where the shares issued have been put into the steerage of ASIC for disposal to other parties apart from the party involved in receiving the shares in teh breach (whiter they were aware of teh breach or not).
This is important because it means the new shares issued to AU Mining in the placement were not allowed to be voted with as they shouldn't have been issued if there was a defined breach, additionally AU Mining would not have been allowed to vote any of its shares in the capital raising.

Also, associated parties would have had to been identified to the market and abstained.
There is still the question of properly defining teh relationship between Au Mining and Tormin mining , Gina Edwards BVI holding company and its sources of funds, which would demonstrate clearly fi there is a relationship between them that has not been announced as is required and despite an investigation. However given that BVI records will be made publicly available by early next year, all this will soon be publicly available and the clarification of the matter will be brought to the surface. Hopefully there is no relationship between them.

I always found it interesting that she sold out a few months before the capital raising at a massive profit and then brought back in.

Is the board aware that it is possible for shareholders to get a court order to have access to ALL company communications inclusive of memo's, meeting notes, emails etc if a band of shareholders collectively demonstrates legitimate concern that the company is not being managed correctly towards the best interest of shareholders. It would certainly be very easy to imply that is the case here. In any case, there is no point in fight a whipped dog.