@ozgoldtrader
and others, the following link describes the independence of experts. I sit on a number of expert witness panels, and it is extremely easy to unintentionally be biased; so i am well aware of this document, as well as the standard expert witness guidelines.
It is also very easy for an expert - who has a desire for a particular outcome, that for instance requires 5 conditions to be satisfied, absolutely, but only 4 can be, then should that report agree with the desired outcome, it is challengeable as the final condition was not satisfied. This not only makes the report tainted, but also casts doubt on the expert's integrity. In these cases, i have seen expert reports that 'fudge around' the final condition.
but back to the guideline - there is a lot here,
https://download.asic.gov.au/media/3336169/rg112-published-25-august-2015.pdf
Now for example: and as i state - only an example of how experts can be scrutinized.
If the expert should rely on this statement by the company:-
Then on a prima facia basis, this appears to be good value.
But then dig deeper:- and for example, can ask the question:- in the past three months, did the expert analyse the shareholders register on the day of the announcement compared to three months previously, the trading of company shares, and was there anything unusual in either : the pattern of trading, and / or changes to the shareholders registry. 'Anything unusual' can be measured against similar shareholder registry / trading patterns previous to this - may wish to go back 2 years in 3 month blocks.
If that was not done, then any conclusion in the expert's report is tainted through lack of due diligence.
If this was done, and it was discovered that in all probability (and that is how courts look at things) there was 'anything unusual' then this needs to be further examined, and there are a number of directions that it can go:- (all of which i have seen in real life)
- it can be redacted from the report, and the expert sent away by the court to reassess the conclusion with this redaction.
- the expert report may be disregarded, as being tainted, and expert dismissed by the court
- the court may decide that this has no material effect on the report outcome.
No at this stage, we do not know who RAP will propose as 'expert' - but assuming that the expert passes all of the 'tests' as outlined in ASIC Regulatory Guide 112, and on the basis that the 'scheme' states :
(c) (Independent Expert) the Independent Expert issues an Independent Expert's Report
which concludes that the Scheme is in the best interests of ResApp Shareholders and
does not publicly change or withdraw that conclusion before 8.00am on the Second Court
Date;
Then would it not be reasonable for the shareholders to have some voice in the appointment and conduct of the expert, and there are two parts to this:
1 - the appointment of the expert.
2- the terms of reference by which the expert must proceed.
It is item 2 that is crucial here - for obvious reasons: and without doubt, should be subject to an EGM - of which to be requested by only 5% of shareholders.
Any EGM should be set out to address only agenda item(s), and needs to bear in mind, that the company are constrained by any confidentiality deeds, and also any restrictions as set out in the scheme.
