Maybe this time around they aren't going to go to the same...

Maybe this time around they aren't going to go to the same outrageous lengths to pocket value for themselves.

Also you can't discount another player like NST coming over the top and launching a TO to put a fly in RRL's ointment and flush the raider's plans down the drain.

A "real" takeover would force a chain of events that would require the raiders to put all the facts on the table. This is still a possible left field action if the SP falls further when the raiders try and dilute the register further with a $10 million raising that is currently not required to commence and advance construction of the project. According to past annoucements CMM has been offer $107 million in debt funding to build the project, $81 million of that being a line of credit which in Dec 2018 was announced as being avaliable to the company to draw down.

It is within the powers of the directors to decide to not commence the project, no draw down on the credit line and actually terminate the credit arrangements if they decide. That is how corporations law works, the directors make the decisions around the best direction for shareholders. The intent however of the corporations law is that the directors have a duty under the law to act in the best interests of all ordinary shareholders, not just a subset of shareholders. Often these lines can become very blurred.

On the basis of the information published by the previous directors in the notice of motion for the spill motion it would appear that on those occassions some people got disproportionately rewarded as a consequence of asset sales and the subsequent actions of the board. If the statements about the salaries they paid themselves in Indago are accurate (see below) I think most people would agree that those remunerations are completely outragous. The law would seem to allow this as long as no misrepresenations are made along the way, so the fault is the law which is a total a*se. The cases of Neon and Targo need be reviewed by law makers as a matter of urgency IMO.

“Few would probably recognise the fourth and fifth highest-paid executives on the list, both of whom pocketed more than $6 million following their ascent to the board, and subsequent restructure, of Perth explorer Indago Resources. Former stockbroker Tim Kestell and former merchant banker Peter Pynes successfully secured board seats at Indago in early 2009, shortly after the one time uranium and base metals explorer had acquired the big Tusker gold project in Tanzania....According to Indago’s annual accounts, Messrs Kestell and Pynes each received just less than $6.05 million for the year, notwithstanding Indago’s negative one-year TSR of 25 per cent”.

One responsibilty that the directors can't skirt is the responsibilty to keep the market properly informed when it comes to funding.

If the lines of credit previously negotiated with Macquarie Bank are no longer available to the company, that needs to be immediatley announced and spelt out and reasons need to be given to shareholders why the debt funding arrangememts have been withdrawn, rejected or lapsed.

Failure to keep the market properly informed in a timely way about material changes to funding arrangements is a contravention of the law and would open these guys up to future legal claims IMO. Esh