throwing stones

Hello all,

I just read the announcement, twice and now I study it in detail. Stone essentially claims that the vote was rigged because the unconditional share offer did not allow shareholders to vote independently, whereas the announcement clearly states they were.

Seeing as the FML offer only became unconditional AFTER the vote Stone appear to be throwing stones in a glass house. It seems to me they are the ones trying to rig the game because they want the "conditional offer" voters votes to be denied as if they had been cast while the offer was unconditional - in control of FML at the time. Does that help :-)

It will be interesting to see if a Panel will even be required to sit now some more money for the lawyers to sort this out.

DYOR I am not a lawyer, this is only how I see it on first evaluation.

CW