don't speculate, talk to the man!, page-6

Aki454,

You are wrong regarding ASIC: one of their purposes is to protect the public from errant companies. Whilest they do not identify the complainant, they do confirm whether there is a complaint pending or not.

You are wrong about caveats: it is encumbant on the person wishing to lodge a caveat to prove a reason. No credible reason, no caveat.

You are wrong about the courts: what Goldus plans to do now is immaterial what was in place then.

and you are probably wrong about Goldus' shareholders claims. Talking to Flis, Due Diligence proved they were dealing with the one, legal, recognised Director of BOTH Goldus and Mintech. That Director alone has the right to deal in the company's assets. Dissenting shareholders do not. The shareholders have the power to change directors. That has not happened. Why not, I wonder? The dissenting shareholders have had 4 years to issue a writ. They have not. They have also had 4 years to lodge a caveat, or push a complaint with ASIC, or sue the company director. They have done none of these things. Why not?

As neither a Goldus or Mintech shareholder, one wonders what you are peddling here? I would direct you to Hotcopper's Code of Conduct:

2. The information you post and submit must be true and accurate to the best of your knowledge. Any information of which you are unsure in any way should include appropriate qualifications.

Not being a Goldus "insider" I very much doubt you meet the requirements of the CofC!