It's the Corpoerations Law, not some random cut and paste. Drake...

It's the Corpoerations Law, not some random cut and paste.

Drake do not have a relevant interest in more than 5% of BBX. That is now just a simple fact irrespective of the nature of how this charity works. If you are investing in companies in Australia under Australian corporation law you should understand the basics of ownership and control of companies under the law.

If this is the amount of care you put into understanding your own investment good luck to you.

Drake are out. The real reason doesn't really matter.

I think the real reason is that the project doesn't stack up so Drake gifted their shareholding to this charity so they could profit from shares they couldn't otherwise sell on the market without crashing the share price by using them as a tax deduction.This charity is a very handy structure IMO.

IMO NPT don't strongly care what price they end up averaging on the sale of the BBX shares they now control (and have 100% legal control over) because the shares have been gifted to them. They simply can't lose because they haven't paid for them. Drake probably haven't lost because they booked an approximate $35.3 million tax deduction against an input cost of about $9 million. Now if the charity can't lose and Drake haven't lost you need to ask yourself who the losers might end up being?

Maybe the losers will be the those who follow or put too much influence on the unregulated hyped-up statements that are allowed to be posted on HC. Who would know, but one thing is for sure. Drake are gone as substantial holders because they no longer hold a substantial relevant interest in BBX under Australian Corporations law.Esh