Ann: ASIC Determination, page-9

1. "PADBURY Mining breached continuous disclosure OBLIGATIONS when it told the market it had “secured” $US6.5 billion to revive the Oakajee port and rail project in Western Australia, says the Australian Securities & Investments Commission."

2. "ASIC said yesterday that Padbury BREACHED DISCLOSURE LAWS by failing to disclose that it was required to arrange for a bank to issue a demand guarantee to a company controlled by Mr Bleyer for $US94 million."

Big difference between an 'obligation' and a 'law' but for arguement sake let's just call it all 'obligation' which is the stance that pdy would take in legal action and warrant no more than a slap on the wrist.
ASIC must have a listing on 'penalties for breaching such obligations' ... or have they ????

How could Stokes agree to a USD$94M 'demand guarantee' - would any bank admit that he actually spoke to them to secure such a vast amount compared to the value of the company's assets? Doubt it...plus how would they raise capital to pay the +$10m pa interest on it until the magnetite operation began in 2016 ????

Reason given recently by him in selling 25M shares 'to pay expected tax liabilities' - probably figured it was a prudent course of action with intonations that he wouldn't be able to pay out anyway if a court action was proven against him/pdy. He's most likely also put the majority of his personal assets into Trust to try protect that.
I've seen it before and it didn't work.....