Ann: Change of Director's Interest Notice - G, page-10

re: Ann: Change of Director's Interest No... Good points Bobby, and I think control goes to the heart of the issue. He's got effective control, even if he can't compulsorily acquire the rest of the company (yet). The rights issuing could have been a moot point (and can still be). If everyone had taken up their offer, then he'd still only have 20% of the company.

And for me, that's where the management has really dropped the ball. I can't really fault them for the bergen debacle, because if it wasn't for bergen the company might have been wound down a long time ago, and the bergen debacle was caused by macro events which most people did not foresee.

However, management have ceded control (even if only emotionally) already to Mr Chan. They should have been encouraging every other shareholder as to why it was a good idea to take up their entitlement. They should have said that they had a cornerstone investor who was in it for the long term ,and wasn't walking away. They should have pointed out that if people didn't take up their raising, that freefire was effectively taking over the company. They should have told shareholders exactly what information they told freefire, because I find it difficult to believe that freefire made their investment decision solely on the information currently in the public domain (and if this every ends up in court with shareholders contesting a compulsory takeover, that will probably be one argument i.e. what information where they given that we weren't).

That doesn't mean I don't think we shouldn't have had Mr Chan come in. I believe we should have had him come in. But I do mean that management should have been looking out for the 80% of their shareholders, instead of the 20%.

Personally, for me, I think every remaining shareholder should hang in there, reject any initial takeover offers, all with the intent of ultimately securing a fair price.