As I understand it; administrators have a fiduciary duty to obtain the best price for an asset, however their masters are creditors. Noteholders are such creditors, and equity holders are not. Noteholders (including myself) had the option of sitting on the committee of noteholders. I chose not to, trusting FTI consulting myself, and I maintain that trust.
Regarding your first point re ASIC,
the point is that they (ASIC) should be looking after the interests of all stakeholders in the company, whereas from @tt2000's recent postings (and my observance of JC and AZZ in general over the last year) this was highly suspect, and he was putting equity holders (himself as largest holder) and directors (himself) ahead of the interests of noteholders who believed they had investment in an asset with a lower risk profile than equity holders.
- Forums
- ASX - By Stock
- AZZ
- Well Played AZZ
Well Played AZZ, page-17
-
- There are more pages in this discussion • 18 more messages in this thread...
You’re viewing a single post only. To view the entire thread just sign in or Join Now (FREE)
Featured News
Add AZZ (ASX) to my watchlist
Currently unlisted public company.
The Watchlist
MTL
MANTLE MINERALS LIMITED
Nick Poll, Executive Director
Nick Poll
Executive Director
SPONSORED BY The Market Online