Ann: Successful OHD Cereal Crop Trials, page-744

SMH ...... I fail to see where I am playing the man? I provided evidence that what your impression/IMO would happen just isn't the case and used the other company as a measuring stick to highlight that no trading halt is necessary and that it wasn't price sensitive considering the similarities of both, if in fact a 249D is issued. Whereas your impression of a long extended suspension is based on what?

As demonstrated in my post you are replying to, it is not the case that a trading halt is needed and it is business as usual, and I really don't know why you think it is because what possible explanation would GPP use for requesting a trading halt?
OH, Mr ASX, we have a possible take over of the board, trading halt please?

I will add though just for the hypothetical exercise:
18/6 A 249D is served and King requests a trading halt for whatever reason (I fail to think of one) remember that a trading halt is requested on securities pending an announcement of some description.
20/6 There is nothing to announce, so GPP asks for a voluntary suspension, heavens forbid I still have no idea why we are in a trading halt, (but I will continue)
9/7 Company announces a general meeting pursuant to requirements of the Corporations Act, meeting to be held 18/8 -which is the maximum amount of time available from the issuing of the hypothetical 249D.
18/8 Meeting is held, obviously there is 2 scenarios that will play out here:

1) All resolutions are rejected by the shareholders, and business as usual for GPP and the current board - at which time shareholders, the ASX, sophisticated investors will all be scratching their heads as to why the company was originally in a trading halt and subsequently suspended!

2) All resolutions are passed and a new board will take over the reigns.
No doubt if it is scenario 2, then there will be a internal corporate review, and depending on the outcome of that review will then dictate what course of action the new board will need to take. I will add at this point, the internal review of the "other" company we are using for a comparison basically started straight away, but it was only because of the mess the financials/operations and tax liabilities were in that the company needed to be placed in a voluntary suspension. Will this be the case for GPP - no one could possibly answer that at this point in time, which also means that I could not possibly put a time frame on how long it would take or if in fact it would need to go down the same path as the other.

"and I take it by your continued insistence of this just being another general meeting of no importance"
If you want to sensationalise what you think I said, then at least get the wording correct, where did I say that the meeting has no importance?

"please explain why you believe a hostile overthrow of a board of directors would not have an ASX listed company placed in a TH, just because the other company didnt go straight into one doesnt mean this one wont"
From the 30th Jan to the 27 April, the comparison company (and yes it was an overthrow of the then current board) traded as normal BUT it never went into a trading halt because there was going to be a meeting to attempt to overthrow the board, it went into a trading halt because of the results of the preliminary corporate review and because of the complexities of the faults found it then asked for a voluntary suspension pending the completion of the Corporate Review.

".... explain what your reasons are for this action ...... (sic) "
You are under the impression that it is my action?
If a 249D is issued it will be the action of a large shareholder or group of shareholders that constitutes a minimum of 5% of the issued shares of the company.

Do I think it needs to happen, you bet I do because if nothing changes then nothing will change and the company/directors will just continue on its merry way collecting their wages for little or no benefit to the shareholders, which will mean at some point that they will be able to coerce a new batch of "mum and dad" investors with inflated announcements followed by credit rises and visions of grandeur whilst they go chasing the next big thing.........

At some point in time there is a straw that breaks an investors back to which the directors should be made accountable for their inability to enhance shareholders wealth.

Cheers
All IMO only