"... Why would they halt trading based on a capital raising when they already have the Patersons option? ..
You wouldn't need to halt if Patersons was going ahead, their rights and the timing were all already explained in the previous prospectus that was lodged."
Why? Perhaps to preserve an orderly market. Consider what might occur if an existing holder with say a couple of million dollars worth of shares was also able to buy a couple of million dollars worth of shares through being a client of Pato's. They could have dumped their existing shares today for some price above their guaranteed replacement price - and it wouldn't even effect the total amount of shares they'd end up with so there would be no change in substantial holding but they'd have had an incentive to sell down.
I tend to agree with you on your other point - I don't see it as likely that the Shortfall can be applied against the absence of large oversubscription when there was still nonetheless an oversubscription.
Unfortunately I think the only near guarantee of funds was the underwritten amount to 5 million, AVZ would have hoped for 15 million i.e. 5 + 5 + 5. But bottom of page 10 shows they recognized the possibility that they might not get 15m and they described what they would do "in the event the Company raises less than the $5,000,000 under the Top-Up Placement and less than $10,000,000 under the SPP offer ..."
AVZ Price at posting:
4.4¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Held
