Sorry but I disagree. I'm not exactly sure what is 'childish'...

Sorry but I disagree. I'm not exactly sure what is 'childish' but it matters not.

" The management were not aware that someone was going to lob a t/o bid at them during a placement."

If they couldn't see that coming or, think it might have been a strong possibility given the low SP and Waitsia resource upgrade, then they ought to be turfed out onto the pavement on Monday morning!

How do you imagine that the placement was sold to the instos?

Further, it is their industry and they ought to be well connected enough or, at least, have an ear or two close enough to the ground to hear the train coming. Perhaps not in their immediate direction but close enough to take notice.

Poor old instos took a big chance buying up a truckload of AWE stock - everything offered as it happens - with nothing that might create capital growth on the horizon - I think not.

Yes, I agree there is, more often than not, an insto component in most placements. Nonetheless, the question that was on the table was - why did the directors give less shares to the smaller holders and more to the instos? A number of posters have made the point that it could have been a fairer split.

And yes, the 15% rule does limit the capital that is available that can be placed without formal SH approval.