Thats correct but the dilution only denied him the egm he had...

Thats correct but the dilution only denied him the egm he had called but he could have still vote against the p/ment and indeed, the board re appointments in the companies EGM. If he had the votes and killed resolution 7 then he would be a sub holder again. The p/ment has no voting rights in escrow but it dilutes none the less and thats a loophole that shouldnt exist.

The intention of the law to deny voting rights in escrow is castrated by the fact it expands issued capital and denies others their non escrowed voting rights. Worth a letter to ASIC even