Originally posted by wilcox
Years ago when I was a shareholder – I attended an Austpac AGM and asked some questions of the board about Partly Paid shares. I had a difficult time interacting with the company secretary and board and I did not get any answers that made sense.
In the end this was a blessing in disguise – while I did not get any useful answers to my questions, the encounter did allow me work out the truth about APG management.
Once I could see the deceitful and self serving nature of APG management, I sold all my APG shares.
I consider myself fortunate I am not now an APG shareholder – but I feel a lot of sympathy for many of you who still are.
Shareholders have allowed the APG secretary and board to get away with some very dodgy and misleading practices for a long time – because the secretary and the board have done a good job of hiding it from them.
In the last few weeks I have written on HC about a variety of subjects regarding APG. I have written truthfully and attempted to back it with facts.
It may be difficult - but if shareholders want to find out the truth for themselves – then they need to ask some questions at the AGM.
** Why is APG issuing shares before receiving payment for those shares, and how long has this been going on??
** Why are the Quarterly Cashflow reports so incorrect and misleading? Specifically:
* Why does the Quarterly Cashflow report for 30/6/2018 say APG has cash at bank = $118,000 but the audited Financial Report say that APG has only $29,155 on the same date??
* Why does the most recent Quarterly Cashflow report to 30/9/2018 say that APG had received the full payment of $180,000 for shares that had been issued – when the audited Financial Report says $145,000 has not yet been received and is still owing to APG by a company associated with the APG company secretary, Nick Gaston??
**Why are APG directors not forfeiting their Partly Paid shares after 10 years like they are supposed to? Specifically:
* Why is Chairman Cuthbertson claiming to own 9.5 million Partly Paid shares in the latest Annual report when he is only entitled to 3.5 million PP shares??
These questions should be asked to chairman Cuthbertson or director Iles.
The company secretary may be doing a very bad job – but it was the job of the directors, particularly those on the Audit Committee to act in the shareholders best interests and ensure these kinds of things do not happen.
Wilcox
PS – It was not in the annual report but shareholders would probably like to know:
** Current number of APG employees -not contractors but those who receive Superannuation from APG.
** What patents does APG currently hold
I remember the AGM where questions were asked about partly paid shares and I share your views about the company’s response. Firstly there was a shareholder who continually berated you asking how many share you held. Trying to hold management to account in an AGM always results in the questioner being attacked, I can’t understand why there are always people in an AGM who totally support and protect management from being held to account. I once asked a question of Turbot that might have been difficult for him to explain and immediately I asked the question, a female voice (wonder who that could have been) at the back of the room, interjected with a motion that question time be ended. Anyway, instead of answering your question or stopping the interjections, Cuthbertson accused you of making derogatory comments on Hot Copper and Gaston responded to the written questions like a robot. Management have treated shareholders with contempt for years and years, and given the many changes to the plant design, I wonder if they have ever intended the plant to be finished.
From what I can gather, APG does not hold any current patents. I suggest that you visit the website of IP Australia (
www.ipaustralia.gov.au), which is the government’s patent authority. From the homepage click on ‘search Australian patents’, then type “Austpac” into the search and you will see a list of their numerous patent applications. I don’t know why, but for some applications you can view various documents, but not for others. If you click on 2006257708, which is another application for EARS on 5 June 2006, and click on the document ‘Examination Report No. 1’, you will see a letter from the examiner which asks for more information. The examiner says the process is not innovative nor novel, and sites a number of patented processes that do the same thing that EARS does. You will see that APG did not provide any further information, and the application lapsed.
If instead of clicking the Australian Patents search, you click on “International” and then type “Austpac” you will see the latest application at the top of the list. Clicking on the link takes you to an information page, click on the heading “Documents”. In the third box you will see a document titled “Written Opinion of the International Search Authority”, click to view the document. I am not a Patent Attorney but reading this document says to me that the process, though novel, does not involve anything inventive. Whether this means that the patent application will not succeed is something I don’t know, but it certainly looks doubtful to me. But my view is the opinion of someone who is not expert in the field of patents.
