People still appear to be confused by the legendary LMIG. From...

People still appear to be confused by the legendary LMIG.

From my reading of the relevant releases and HC postings at the time, the LMIG was(is) a group of CDY shareholders that temporarily banded together in order to formally demonstrate to Management that a collective opinion existed with respect to possible corporate activity, such as a low-ball offer for all or part of the company. If so, its raison d’être therefore aligns with the speculative like-minded topic currently under discussion.

On formation in mid-2016 its constituents and leadership were necessarily declared via an ASX substantial holding notice, and it was disbanded 4 months later via a corresponding notice.

How the group was able to form and expand is interesting. Section 177(1) of the Corporations Act relating to the use of information on company registers states:
(1) A person must not:
(a) use information about a person obtained from a register kept under this Chapter to contact or send material to the person; or
(b) disclose information of that kind knowing that the information is likely to be used to contact or send material to the person.
One must assume that the necessary shareholder contact details that allowed mutual interaction were obtained by some other means.

Although the reason for its formation was discussed on CDY threads at the time, the reason for its disbandment was not and is open to conjecture. Mine is that the group realised the impracticality of the individual holdings of all group members needing to be constantly monitored in order to track any need for a change in collective substantial holding. Also, with combined holdings moving towards 20% a moment of purchasing exuberance by one of its by then 27 members could have activated the expensive process of a formal takeover offer, which I’m sure the group was not contemplating.

Nonetheless it can be assumed that group members are still equally like-minded and that it therefore continues to exist in an informal structure, with some members no doubt current readers and/or contributors to the HC CDY threads. If my interpretation still represents their cause, then I think there would be many other HC contributors who are similarly-minded. Enabling others to recognise what would be low-ball, and what would constitute an irrational judgement contrary to their interest, is paramount.