placement facility, page-5

Could be the case - I estimate that the top 5 shareholders hold around 78% of the shares, but would there be any issues with them voting on this (related parties)? If an extra 25% went their way they would have 82 - 83% of the total increased number of shares. Assuming they are still holding their stakes Gleneagle and JP Morgan would hold around 12% of the new company. Combining this with a share buyback they could then offer a 20% premium to remaining shareholders to get themselves over the 90% threshold after which they can compulsorily acquire the remainder. Very few shareholders would want to be stuck in a private company with little way to liquidate their shares, so a lowball premium it would likely get over the line. I think Westside have done something similar to this in the past, and the major shareholders in tbr have a strong Chinese influence.

As you said its speculation but they have $200m in gold holdings that could easily fund development, not to mention they could get debt on good terms which is cheaper than equity.

But perhaps we have it all wrong, and I suppose a small premium is better than no premium currently. Still I will vote against this unless a good case is put forward.