intermoco rescue package..., page-41

I don't think is moot point.

If it was advised in offer doc that c group would take up full entitlements, and they didn't...

there is mention in administrator notes that the backer, presumably c group, denied them as at 1 july, of some commercial agreement they had with each other.

the spp however closed 6-8 weeks prior. where was the action and public stmts about that aspect?

is it reasonable for the offer doc creator to stop the press, and issue an announcement to holders? at the time of issuing shares? or refunding spp of all other participants?

And we are just talking about the rights issue point. we haven't even talked about shortfall assertions.

IMO Nathan , I don't get the concept that he only put 20% of the 250k pool, to match others. it stated he would take his own rights up in full didn't it?

smells to me a complete rescindment. opposite to 2 or 3 assurances given in offer doc.

if c group he held 20% stock then he they 4-5% rights?

so isn't it automatic, to take up the maximum to the creep rule? I think the offer doc showed examples that c group could take up another 3,4,5% under creep rule. and assurance was provided that they would do so.

shortfall: ambiquity in offer doc. perhaps c group matching others at 20% as bare minimum would have been the idealogy according to offer doc notes. but only in terms of shortfall as minimum contribution.

irrespective of all this confusion we talking about. where was the prompt announcement prior to administration, and or immediately upon issueance of shares to inform holders in full of all these news?

where is the administrator detailed commentary on such?

where was the information to state the result of what c group took up and why and how it marry to offer doc or not.

I think some key things were just skipped over entirely.

why did the offer doc not contain more pertinent fundamental information, about the company finanicial position, nature of the raising etc, and or information about assurances from backers etc.

ie: we all thought cashflow was looking ok, but we did not know a bulk of cash had just been burnt on hiring extra staff under THS. and other abnormals. we did not know the dire financial position.

I feel I was caught hook line and sinker from that offer doc. and not only that , prior to subscribing I did have personal chats with company reps, and was also given similar assurances privately.

I question john evans & c group, in the main on all these points. I want to be very clear on one point, I have the utmost respect for Kiril Ruvinskyand his efforts and actions surrounding all of these matters. I believe firmly that he is beyond reproach on all these matters.

Kiril has been very honest and forthright. My angers lay elsewhere and with others.

Who needs to get paid first? perhaps the idiot (me) that gave into the spp believing all its content, received no news at the time of issueance of shares,that many of its contained assurances failed to realise.

I missed the due date of spp, and then paid anyways the following day, it was banked knowingly at the time that C group had not chimed in theirs.