sisyphus, agree it is relevant to the management of the company...

First 37 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
strike101

2,112 Posts.

2

17/09/16

14:10

Post #: 19225670
Share

Originally posted by sisyphus ↑

Quite possibly, ddxb, but the crux of the problem was that AGS had a signed a contract that only the Board was privy to. And the board made the decision to go to court purportedly in the interests of all shareholders, but with them alone having the full knowledge of the contract's terms and conditions.

Shareholders were never party to the JV agreement and its several variations, but supported the boards decision believing there must have been sound grounds for taking legal action. That AGS then whittled down $40 million + of shareholders money (CRs) to the desperate situation where there was no cash left) I found astounding.

Good luck with your trading, ddxb. And GL everyone. I hold no negativity towards new shareholders who saw an opportunity to gain. We would all have done the same, but hopefully we would still see what was unfair for those who supported the company and its ill fated decisions over the years.

Expand

sisyphus, agree it is relevant to the management of the company and therefore current trading. Which given all the history has a record of deceiving and plundering shareholders.

Whether punters won or lost or are as some here appear to claim are great and instintive traders who didn't lose the fact is the quality of the management is doubtful.

AGS Price at posting: 4.4¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
3 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply

Top Stories

The iron ore comeback: Can it last?

HAW

Hastings progressing Yangibana to production with lower costs

ACW

Actinogen Medical ramps up Alzheimer’s treatment trials, targeting fast-track global approvals

TI1

Coda Minerals (ASX:COD) enters rights issue to further exploration in South Australia

ZNO

Zenith's sale of Develin Creek delivers $975K cash, with shares up 13%