Share
4,783 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 148
clock Created with Sketch.
09/05/18
12:45
Share
Originally posted by jdpc35
↑
My take on all this for what it is worth:
- Jiameng was after some hard currency (USD) for whatever reason (??);
- He could not get AUD or USD from a dividend payment - I think that the rules relating to "free movement" of funds out of China for dividend payments may only relate to non-Chinese shareholders;
- Accessed his approved Gallus facility for USD2.744m (AUD3.56m equivalent) pledging the 159.6m shares (worth $5.267m at last traded price prior to suspension).
- It is an interestingly consistent pattern of drawdowns between Feb and July last year!!
- Meanwhile, was playing fast and loose with the ASX announcements - did not want "us" to know what was going on.
And now he is in a deep hole - and we are now finally all the wiser as to what has been going on.....
So from here:
- We have 159.6m shares as an overhang in the market - Gallus will be wanting their money back and will be wanting to offload ASAP;
- These shares represent 36.7% - so no one buyer can take these over without launching a takeover bid;
- Jaimeng cannot buy these back without making a takeover bid;
- Gallus will need to find a range of "others" to soak these shares;
- If indeed there is $50m+ cash in bank, the current board have options on what they do next - including payment of a dividend (which Gallus would happily support as it would also help support the share price as they offload these shares).
Overall, this announcement provides clarity to what we are dealing with. It also highlights that, if existing shareholders can bide their time after this re-lists and wait for the about to sort itself out, there may be some sunshine to this stock yet....
Just my musings, but as always, DYOR
Expand
Great comments
How on earth did Gallus get past 5% and 19.9% without notifying asx and Asic?,I cant but see this is tremendously significant. Any corps law experts here? This is surely class action shareholder action. Can we call a meeting and have both their votes excluded from a count? Also who voted back in January meeting? This is utterly bizarre. I've never heard of anything like this