“Ripping off shareholders “ - another ‘emotive descriptor’...

“Ripping off shareholders “ - another ‘emotive descriptor’ you’ve contrived; I’ve never used the term nor ever suggested the Board has at any time acted unlawfully.

If you trawl my posts , as you seem prone to, you’ll find my position on the terms of the CR. Curious why you keep bringing it up. BTW, dissent or non-agreement ( the antonym being agreement) does not necessarily evoke an alternative.

I assume you were fully in agreement with the CR and will remain so even if your application is rejected at the Board’s whim or heavily scaled back. That risk of allotment of crumbs to any one or each of us having applied has been mandated by the Board by virtue of the $1m SH cap; not so for them.

The terms of the CR could readily have been fairly structured with SH in mind, even within the max capital required. Foe example, by a lesser amount virtually guaranteed to any director puting their hand up and an increase in the $1m limit ( or over subscriptions being accepted subject to a cap) to we also-rans.

The directors’ guaranteed allotments crafted by the Board to satisfy each of their personal investment preferences, (subject only to the vote next week, a virtual certainty to be passed in their favour) do not run any such risk of an application rejection or scale back nor importantly, in any event, the dilution we face.

Do you think that’s either fair or good corporate governance? Is the Board’s CR terms tantamount to ‘corporate governance - Boo’?

Anyway, that’s not what my recent posts have been about, but you have called for it twice.