This is Ashley Zumwalt, page-8

We've been down this road before and I'm not really interested in revisiting old ground again. For new readers, we agree is that BMM owns the CN, which entitles them to receive the quarterly interest payments and also the loan principal repayment which is due in 2020. However, I contend that given their current shareholding percentage, BMM is (currently) effectively snookered from converting the CN debt into shares at the agreed rate of 9c/share - for reasons previously articulated.

I'd be very interested to know the basis in law that you used to form the view that BMM can still convert the CN into shares. I reckon so would RD and the POS legal team. I've already explained (several times now) the legal rationale that underpins this and I can cite you the relevant Corps Act sections to point you in the right direction, if you like (a repeat of previous posts). I would very much like you to return the courtesy/discipline.

Have you spoken to POS management about this yet? Perhaps you should. Don't forget, the CN was acquired at the beginning of their informal T/O discussions, before they were outplayed in Round 1 with the large rights issue. The real question is whether they would acquire the CN today from Jefferies knowing how Round 1 panned out. But they cannot turn back the clock. Another thing worth noting is that Jefferies may have wrapped their original share parcel and CN into a single job lot that BMM would need to "take it or leave it" (so to speak). We'll never know whether it was Jefferies' shareholding, or the CN, or both that appealed to BMM and we'll never know whether Jefferies made the sale of one contingent on the other.

When you talk about their (BMM's) Phase 1 "defined" strategy, can you cite the information source so we can verify/confirm for ourselves? Otherwise, it's just one person's speculation. Are you aware that there has been no meaningful short-selling activity in POS atm? You talk about Pershing being one designated yankee insto allies. Are you aware that Pershing is used by POS' corporate broker (Petra)?

Nobody is suggesting that BMM are clowns. Far from it. I have not met anyone from BMM so I cannot speak with authority as to what their attitudes are. From the authority with which you speak, I'm hoping (in vain?) you have more to go on that just mere personal speculation.

I agree that this is a serious business. And because it is, I strongly encourage you to research first before typing most of your outlandish statements. It's tiresome correcting all your inaccuracies, which I have largely stopped doing now. I'm not saying that everything you write is BS, but it's a real crap shoot and readers will need to be aware so they can judge and verify for themselves.

It wasn't a "dilution defense" per se. BMM ended up with a greater percentage shareholding after the capital raising than when they started (i.e. with the JB shares alone)! The real defensive move (imo) was to raise sufficient capital to fully fund the business, which completely removed our "distressed (unfunded) target" status!

Tommy, you talk a really good game, but I strongly suspect that you're out of your depth here. You're starting to sound a bit panicked. Rather than telling AF what he needs to do, just relax. I reckon AF might know a thing or two about corporate raiding strategy. US$17.5m (~AU$24m) is not a large debt load!

Remember, BMM will only get control if "we" (incl. AF) sell it to them. We're not a distressed borrower, so enough with the hysterics. Maybe you should get on the horn to Twiggy to coach him. He'll take your call, right?

Just relax.

Oh... and try to do some research to temper some of those more outrageous statements/claims.