re: Ann: Change of Director's Interest No... Correct me if I'm...

re: Ann: Change of Director's Interest No... Correct me if I'm wrong, Bobby and Baz, but as far as I'm aware:

1. Bobby said "He now has all the power to de-list this thing".

From what I understand, any takeover announced would have to succeed at or past 90% of all shares for them to be able to compulsorily acquire the rest of the company. Which is why many potential other suitors (for those companies lucky enough to have more than one suitor) acquire blocking stakes of at least 10% (whether via shares or derivatives).

So, provided more than 10% of shareholders say no (and I would be one of them), then Freefire is forced to keep the listed vehicle, and the resultant reporting, etc. He can only acquire the other 40% of the company at 0.2cents if people agree to sell it to them. I certainly wouldn't be doing that.

2. Baz, one of the directors has taken up his full entitlement of shares (not options), another director has taken up more than his entitlement based on his shareholding (not including his option holding), and a third director has taken up a token entitlement, possibly for his own financial reasons, so I don't see their acceptances as doom and gloom or indicating a lack of faith. They could have possibly done more, but they could also have done nothing. As for Starr's corporate investment vehicle, it's not different to what many, many directors and investors do. Most of their accountants and solicitors actively encourage them to do so via setting up of companies and trusts, for both asset and tax reasons. It might be a little unfair to be casting aspersions on their reputation just because they invest via a corporate vehicle.

Having said that, their other past actions may quite deserve some aspersions being cast...