CDD is different. The second capital raising was unneccessary,...

CDD is different. The second capital raising was unneccessary, such a short term breach of covenants (although an event of default) is most often negotiated out. Michael Alscher acknowledged this indirectly in his comments to market he said it was so they didn't need to worry about it and can focus on other things.
Most companies would trade out of this situation but Crescent are interested in diluting small holders and increasing their stake cheaply through a buyback rather than running afoul of the takeovers act.
This has created a rarely repeated opportunity in my opinion of a good company with strong balance sheet and outlook selling very cheaply.
Are there still brokers covering MRM, I don't take much interest but when they stop covering that will be a good sign. A capital raising here is less likely than CDD even though it has more debt - I wouldn't rule it out though.
The way the directors pursued asset sales first indicates their commitment to the small holdet which is a positive sign in my view.