goodaye Buddy,well, I think we are on the same page.I don't have...

goodaye Buddy,
well, I think we are on the same page.

I don't have any shares in ADE, so I am on the outside looking in!.

I do think you guys are spot on waiting until the end of the offer, and/or waiting to hear what the direcotrs will do.

My interest is one of market interest, as I think Beach's actions speak more than their words, and slight of hand. I also think that Beach's actions may well be a precursor to other market action - hence my interest in ADE situation.

Just a couple of comments.

When I mentioned that "in order to justify their delisting of ADE, they (Beach) will crap on that its too costly with compliance costs, ASX fees etc. "

the subject of delisting is the perogative and domain of the ASX - Not ASIC.

If Beach don't get more than 90% and cannot compulsorily acquire the remainder, then ADE is still a public coy, and must comply with the Corps Law. SO all those compliance issues wrt the Corps Law still apply - eg AGM, directors, audited accounts, acting in the interests of ALL s/h, seperation of monies, assets sales, cash flows etc etc - still apply.

The compliance costs I am referring to relate to the compliance costs of being listed on the ASX.

Typically it is those costs which Beach will use as an excuse to delist. And those costs are actually not huge. Even if they are delisted, they ADE still must have a seperate Board.

The liquidity issue is one issue that the ASX will look at when ADE applies for delisting. Liquidity being number of trades, and number of shares traded. Also number of individual s/h is important factor.

Activities of "bots" probably helps with the liquidity I guess.

Liquidity of ADE is only an issue IF Beach makes it an issue.
And they will.
because they WILL try to have ADE delisted, because that will cause recalcitrant ADE s/h much grief.

You are right in saying there are other coys out there on the ASX with little liquidity - but the big difference is that those controlling the boards of those coys are not trying to delist the stock. big difference.

In one of the posts it was mentioned that ADE must have independent directors - but I posted previously that Beach have appointed "independent" directors -albeit their own! And Gassed has also just made that point. One can bet Beach will argue that they are comnplying with good governance and have appointed "independent" directors.
Here again Beach playing dirty.

I am not trying to influence ADE s/h one bit - i don't care what people do - its not my money.
All I am trying to do is relate some of my experiences over the years, and alert people to what might happen, and what some of the options might be.

I posted way back, that BPT would dump the ADE board as soon as they got their 50% - and they did.
this delisting tactic is tried and tested - and grossly unfair and predatory to minorities.
But these bullying antics seem to be allowed.

The ASX has got no testicles, and ASIC is generally asleep at the wheel.

SO I suspect that it will be up to the ex-directors of ADE to try and "keep the bastards honest."

cheers