To the best of my knowledge I view the situation as such. (If others find the following incorrect please enlighten me and correct my misunderstanding, because I don't believe it is my fault the ASX has informed me inadequately of their CR rules and at the end of the day is that not their responsibility?)
Some facts, questions and opinions:
Fact 1. Each share (unless stated otherwise) is entitled to the same proportional vote as each other at the AGM and voting on other matters deemed appropriate to the running of the company.
Fact 2. Each share (unless stated otherwise) is entitled to the same proportional dividend issued by the company on a per share basis.
Question 1. However, when it comes to discounted rights to participate in providing a company with capital, is it my correct understanding that apparently ASX Rule 7.1 allows companies "discretion" to treat each share on a non proportional 1:1 basis?
Question 2. Why does the ASX allow this?
Question 3. When it appears that the end result in outcomes for one group of shareholders seems to be different to another? When they are holding the exact same type of shares?
Question 4. Why dose the ASX allow this to happen, given when it is time to "value" each share (when it comes to trade them on the ASX) each share is deemed at that time of "equal value"?
Opinion 1 . Every shareholder is being disadvantaged. Whether they hold more than the 8,000 or so or not, (as previously worked out by others). That is because additional shares were also being issued outside the existing shareholder base to investors who didn't carry any downside risk going into the trading halt and announcement. They only had upside advantage (of being offered the chance to participate and knowing the circumstances). There is a cost holding downside risk. Existing holders carry that risk. Those sitting on the sidelines do not. Even if (as it appears on this occasion) it was minimal (a slight downrate on earnings), there are other downside risks that are present, but not yet necessarily evident. The price of downside risk is written into everyones long term return vs those who don't hold stock at the time (or pay for it).
Fact 3. In the accompanying CR announcement on the ASX, at the start of this thread, HSN stated the following and I quote. "Hansen has the capacity to fund 100% of the purchase consideration utilising new bank facilities in place".
Question 5. Therefore, why the urgency to allow shareholdings to be treated differently?
Opinion 2. Consequently I don't agree with the "we had to keep it quiet to get the best deal, or we didn't have time to do the correct and equitable thing" explanation some have put up on previous posts in this thread...
Question 6. I wasn't aware there are two classes of common tradable shares in this company. Like class A and B? Are there?
Please help me and correct me if I am wrong with any of these facts, questions and opinions....
I am sorry to be a stickler on this, but at the end of the day these things matter to the overall returns of all shareholders in my opinion. DYOR and NA.
(20min delay)
