and so it begins, page-5

Why don't we wait until we hear from Silvergate as to exactly what their proposals are? In addition I think we should be careful about presumptions as to who turned on whom or why this situation has developed. At the moment we know nothing.

I cast my votes in favour of Nick's two new directors for the cancelled AGM. However I did vote against all the proposals that would allow dilution of the shares including just handing the incoming Directors a huge parcel of shares. I fail to see why, at this particular point that should be done. Why not wait till the Silvergate proposal is assessed and released to the market? We seem to be potentially handing over a very large contribution to the new Directors without any input from them as Directors to this point. People work hard and save hard to get their stake in CAP. It shouldn't just be diluted on some half-baked idea. If we are going to issue shares to employees let it be based on something they have done for the company.

However my main fear was the request to allow 15% of the company to be placed with any insto the Board, as it would then be constituted, cared to issue shares to. It’s fair to say that proposal frightened the hell out of me. Why were they asking for it? Like a few others here I was heavily invested in CCC. The record speaks for itself. I'm also in a couple of other companies where this is happening. The Boards are acting in interests contrary to those of the shareholders and nothing can be done. I don't want that possibility here.
I do not want shares issued to instos who have contributed nothing to this company and whose only role later would be the sell-down of their holding to destroy the share price. Again we see it only too often.

The big benefits that will accrue to CAP in the near future will come from Silvergate or Conglin. Are Nick's proposed people really independent Directors in what is ahead? If the Board is restructured with Silvergate 2, Conglin 1, Nick 5, then the people who are putting up most of the capital, effectively underwriting CAP's future, can simply be outvoted on any proposal. It doesn’t matter how Conglin votes or how Silvergate vote. Effectively their seats on the Board are rendered worthless. Now, as someone who has worked with Chinese for almost 30 years and, in total, spent nearly 2.5 years of my life there, that would NOT a good situation from their viewpoint.

Somehow, and I don’t understand how, and possibly I don’t quite fully understand all the classifications of shares, the Board (suddenly?)seems to hold 10% of the shares. I can’t see how this came about. If they then issue 15% to some insto with no interest in the company other than a short –term profit, Silvergate or Conglin are left way outvoted despite their heavy investment in proceedings so far. Their stakes could be rendered worthless. Why do we want that situation?
We ought be careful we don’t push these people so far out that we lose them. In a world of over-supply of iron ore and declining iron ore prices it may not be easy to find another investor with access to the $3B (or whatever figure is required) capital to get Hawson’s up and running. If we lose these people what is left of CAP and what will our shares be worth?
I will be one very unhappy camper in that circumstance.

Now I don't have a solution to hand. I think the real solution is for this stupid outbreak of hostilities to stop. Let ASI/Silvergate or Conglin get on with the job ahead of funding and developing Hawson's. We've been held up now for nearly two years with the BMG fiasco. During that time the shares have gone from 90c to 15 or 16 c. They are only back to where they are now because of the activities of Silvergate. Are we going to mess around for another two years...What for? To watch CAP end up at 5c or 2c or some such?
Just my two cents worth...which is a bit less than I managed to get out of CCC for! (old shares value!)