Ten Network Holdings, page-15

So for anyone who still cares - I sent a detailed request to ASIC to investigate the circumstances under which Ten was placed into administration.

The crux of the issue is that there are very clear and defined steps in the guarantor agreement provided to shareholders when presented for approval. The premise of those steps was to demonstrate that the agreement did not proffer control to M and G (ha ha aha aha ahaahaaa.....)

Anyway, when M & G got together to bully Ten directors, they did not follow that process. I call that a breach of contract, and loss was suffered by the parties to the contract, ie. Ten shareholders and as such reparation was required - was never suggesting the sale should not proceed, but if M & G breached the contract should they be entitled to their fees?

In addition, did Ten directors fail in their duty to act in the interest of all shareholders by not enforcing the terms of the agreement and requiring a vote of the three guarantors and advice via the trustee (as per the memo to shareholders)?

ASIC thinks there just isn't enough evidence and weighed up the public interest of 17000 shareholders and Australia's third largest TV network, against going to war against Murdoch and Gordon.... and guess what they decided!??!

Maybe it has something to do with their last experience with Murdoch during OneTel issues where from my reading, their handling of the case was none too well critiqued by the judge.

Ah well, it was a long shot anyway....

(btw Cain - thats kinda not how it works )