Contrary Indicator?, page-50

Thank you Oranje,

As you can't quote the legally biding paragraph from the legally biding agreement that proves me wrong, we will have to presume that the backdoor take over is possible and its not by accident that it exists.

A tip Oranje, when a debater goes the personal abuse route it's a clear indication that that debater has no facts with which to argue.

And another never get yourself between a Billionaire and a pile of money!

In my opinion the EWC board is at least neglegent in not protecting its shareholder's from EWI's business practices.

Eg, if they were on the ball, so to speak, they would insist, as EWI has not met it's project objectives, to proportion the debt to each project and guarantee by a legally binding agreement that each project will have at least twelve months operating at full capacity to organise the finance to pay EWI out!

Should EWI not be intending to use it's back door takeover option than the above is in EWI's interests as it would supply the certainty of ownership that the institutions required to rerate the sp need.

Thus improving sp, shareholders wealth and therefore EWI's wealth.

If EWI is not intending to use it's backdoor takeover option than it makes no sense to keep it!

EWC's Board independant director's should bring this up at the next Board meeting, imo.

EWI's response would give a clear indication of its intent.

All in my opinion of course!

Look forward to a factual response!