As I've been posting my correspondence with ASIC on the scheme...

As I've been posting my correspondence with ASIC on the scheme booklet etc I thought I may as well add the last exchange.

My motivation for doing this - I hate feeling disempowered out of legal rights and I expect other retail shareholders feel similarly. Whilst the amount of shares I hold in KDR make the cost of challenging the scheme of arrangement too great for me personally - that doesn't mean the scheme of arrangement could not have successfully have been challenged by a shareholder with deeper pockets or a perhaps a group of shareholders coming together - and I believe the market is entering a period where there is likely to be more merger and acquisition activity - more schemes of arrangement and takeovers. Another stock I hold CYP has notified that it received a non binding proposal potentially involving a scheme of arrangement.

Weak or greedy boards can be used by large players against their own shareholders. Because of the cost factors in defending a position (like a shareholder's legal rights) I feel confident that not all potentially winnable actions are taken. The cost of taking a matter to the takeovers panel would be about $2400 for the application fee for instance. Which is not much if there are a large enough number of shares involved but does constitute a significant hurdle for most retail shareholders with diverse portfolios.


What I find interesting in the comment from the ASIC lawyer suggesting that the existence of a clear intent by a shareholder to object to a scheme of arrangement may cause ASIC to get involved at the second hearing stage as well.

Of course an objection based on nonsense could hardly expect support. And I wasn't really surprised that ASIC didn't want to get into offering advice on legal costs.

A crappy argument probably does deserve to have costs awarded against the person making it for wasting time but a genuinely held view with proper research behind it based on the existing law would, I believe, get a pretty sympathetic hearing from a judge in the context of a second hearing at least to the extent of not having costs awarded against it for the time taken by legal counsel to prepare a rebuttal. But that is just my opinion.