O.K Folks - so I have read over quite a bit since my last post and clearly there is a lot of details surrounding the ' Related Party ' transaction aspects and nature of what has transpired.
In my opinion the Questions of the ASX have been asked and answered by not only our BOD but the other companies who are embroiled in this seemingly tangled and botched investigation as well.
For those who are under the impression that the ASX and ASIC are somehow friends of the small shareholder - you'd best think this through again. There is clearly no 'smoking gun' here or at any of the other companies involved in these affairs IMO. In short the ASX has ' Bupkis ' and is just another example of them stepping in to pour cold water over and hose down an otherwise perfectly commercial transaction which may have substantially benefited a large number of ordinary Australian Investor's.
The matters surrounding MTL , VIC and HDY are obviously apart of a greater investigation into Everblu and the distinction between their advisory and research capacity versus their connections with steering their funds management , private client , sophisticated investors whatever you like side of their business into these 3 companies. There are other examples like COB as well which at their peak shareholders had done very nicely thank you very much. However as the Article in the Financial Review stated clearly :-
" It also signals that the ASX is flexing its muscle around Australia's vague and notoriously porous related-party rules. "
Why should the ASX takes this position against HDY when Everblu has given its statements and evidence in relation to such matters such as :-
"EverBlu has and implements a robust Chinese wall policy both physically and digitally, each involving numerous safeguards which ensure that the Chinese wall is not breached and strict confidentiality is maintained," he said in response to emailed questions. "
"It is common in the financial services sector (and any other sector for that matter) to do business with the same companies or persons on more than one occasion," Adam Blumenthal says. "If a person or a company is performing their services adequately or to a superior standard, why should there be any restrictions in terms of using their services again?"
AND ,
" EverBlu is far from the only broker that follows this playbook. "
So in MTL's case , the ASX requested that the Company rectify the breaches to ASX’s satisfaction before MTL would be reinstated to trading. This included answering all their questions and holding a Shareholders Meeting to approve all the back dated share issuance's as far back as Sept 2017. As at the 4th of July , the shareholders in MTL approved unanimously in favor of all the issued shares - and there has been no further ASX questions been asked.
So why HOLD UP then , and why has MTL's shares not been re-instated. Is this because of the further and broader investigations of VIC and HDY. Another question at this point would be why is this considered fair or in the best interests of MTL's shareholders or moreover why should then VIC and HDY's small holders who's companies are operating in completely different industries and projects been unduly penalized with their investments being compromised in this manner by the ASX and their over the top innuendo's and accusations. The article itself makes the reference of the ASX going ' nuclear ' simply because the company ( MTL ) remained defiant and did not agree with the stance taken by the ASX.
This handling by the ASX of our companies undertakings is totally unacceptable in my view. I would have thought that one of the many most important responsibilities of the ASX to all companies traded on their index would be to provide both a transparent market and one which also provides the continued liquidity of all persons Investments on a perpetual and continued basis. To lock out investors from trading their securities for what appears to be from our standpoint a indefinite time period is simply unacceptable. To do it with a blatant disregard to the expedient resolve of the minority shareholders is in my opinion bordering on a
Malfeasance of the highest order.
They should have a good look at themselves before pointing fingers and depriving others of opportunities in the area of wealth creation. After all - they are the ones who happen to have a listing of their company on their own index. If that wasn't the biggest conflict of interest that ever was put forth in the beginning then I give up. And who benefited from that back in the day - the brokers , members and their cronies of course......
