JandJ yep home. Theory didnt survive mathmatics. Here it was;...

JandJ yep home. Theory didnt survive mathmatics.

Here it was; the B Share allocated under the placements didnt prohibit voting but required the holder to vote in acordance with the BOD. That gave the "benefit" to the BOD (in theory the Co/)

That created three problems (assuming enforcable under requisite legislation)

1) dependent on numbers the board could "out vote" the ballance of the shareholders which is problematic. Its not after all a default proxy but a positive obligation.

2) There could be difficukty in selling the B shares to arms lenght purchasers who expected the normal rights accorded to shares.

3) If one of the three became a board member then the vote limitation became meaningless.

Now Aubin researched the share register and other co/ registers determined that Huang had recently resigned from two Boards, one of which was Minera Chinalco Peru. I thought that INC might view his experience and connections as valuable and considered him board material if he was unable dominate the Board with more shares individually that the total of the ballance of the Board.

Anyway i was way off cos it was Wu who sold and Huang holds almost 2 times the total holding of the combined Board members.

So sorry as I was simply trying to see what might underly the notice. Hope all that makes sence.