Originally posted by speccy
You're way off the mark procras.
The 85m warrants that the Board gave OCP as part of the 'deal' to defer the loan for 2 years convert to a shareholding of about 13%. In addition to the 33% they currently have, puts them at about 46%.
Do you think that will take "ten to twenty years" as you assert?
NB this 'deal' with the warrants is part of the evidence.
The 85m warrants and 13% interest rate on the loan extension convert to an interest rate equivalent of about 29% per year to OCP (plus a capital profit of, currently, about $14.5m)!
Would you say that these are normal commercial rates procras?
Finally, none of my group are trying to get on the Board, however, we do want Directors who represent all shareholders not just OCP?
DYOR!
happy to be corrected... the warrants are perhaps a too generous repayment for a loan and its extension, but the exercise price was at a small premium to the traded price in those days. AML does not generate cash yet so can only amortize debt by issuing new shares and warrants - the generosity level is what is stinky here. It's important to remember though that the warrants could have been worth nothing, had the shareprice never recovered from 16c, i.e. there's risk involved. Btw, my suggestion that "someone here" is trying to roll the board was tongue-in-cheek, which is why I qualified it as "fatuous".
What do you make of resolution 6 of the previous AGM, in light of the OCP conspiracy theory? Genuine question. Opposition to this resolution was only equal to that of the remuneration report, so OCP was in favour. Here's abbreviated text:
Explanatory Note
The Corporations Act 2001 permits a company's Constitution to include a prohibition on the registration of atransfer of shares resulting from a proportional takeover offer which has not been approved by a resolutionpassed at a general meeting of shareholders or by postal ballot. A proportional takeover offer is an offer fora specified proportion of securities in a class. Under section 648G of the Corporations Act 2001, such a prohibitionmay have a term of 3 years. It may be renewed by special resolution of shareholders.The Directors consider that it is in the interests of shareholders for the Company to include a proportionaltakeover approval provision as contained in proposed Clause 32 of the Company's Constitution.
Effect of Proportional Takeover Approval Provisions
Proposed Clause 32 of the Constitution provides that, if a proportional takeover offer is received, theregistration of a transfer resulting from acceptance of an offer made under the proportional takeoveroffer is prohibited unless a resolution is passed by shareholders approving the proportional offer. Clause 32provides that for an approval resolution to be passed, the proportion that the number of votes in favour ofthe resolution bear to the total number of votes on the resolution must be greater than one-half. The bidderunder the takeover offer and its associates are not entitled to vote on the resolution.
Reasons for Resolution
The Directors consider that shareholders should have the opportunity to vote on a proposed proportionaltakeover offer. A proportional takeover offer of the Company may enable control of the Company to beacquired by a party holding less than a majority interest and without shareholders having the opportunityto dispose of all their shares, with the attendant risk of shareholders being left as part of a minority interest.Adoption of Clause 32 will prevent this situation from arising without shareholder approval.
(20min delay)
