The Chalice from the Palace, page-3

Thank you Pavy for your comments and insight.   I wish more PPN shareholders would post comments.
As you suggest, I will try to write in plain English and without an Irish accent.

QUESTIONABLE INSOLVENCY
First of all, I don't believe there is any evidence that PPN is currently insolvent .
Our intelligence is that business at the Bar 20 strip club in King St is booming and cashflow is stronger than ever [$80K+ a week].  PPN's other source of income is rent of around $450K a year from the Daily Planet building paid by Metropolis City Promotions Pty Ltd [MCP].  

MCP is Trimble's company and most of the brothel rent goes back to MCP under a service contract When PPN went into VA on 4 May, the service agreement should have come to an end, an immediate saving for PPN of around $450K a year.  

AMOUNT OF MCP'S DEBT TO PPN
There is some controversy as to the exact amount MCP owes PPN and security offered.  The last loan extension expired on 30 June 2014 but neither of the Trimbles can vote to extend the debt period as it is a related party transaction.

SHAREHOLDER BUYOUT
At an AGM a few years ago, I pointed out to Trimble that if he were to buy out the minority shareholders at, say 50 cents a share, the same amount shareholders paid at the 2003 IPO, it would only cost him around $3m for the 6m shares he doesn't own.  This was about the same amount as his MCP debt at that time.  Trimble took this suggestion on board and it appears to have been in the back of his mind ever since.

PPN bought back around 2m shares a few years ago and this increased Trimble's share of PPN to just under 80% at no cost to himself.  If PPN was able to buy back another 10%, Trimble's would own 90%, enabling him to compulsorily acquire the remainder and the game of monopoly that began in May 2003 would be over.

A scheme was concocted last year whereby G Spot made an offer to buy up some of the smaller parcels of PPN shares.  Unfortunately G Spot offers were sent to Action Group members who quickly twigged that all parties were housed on the same floor of the same building where PPN has its registered office.  ASIC were very quick to jump on the illegal G Spot offer.  

POISON PILLS
My 'Chalice from the Palace' post is a warning to look out for "poison pill" under valuations of PPN's assets and for shareholders to be on guard should there be a new strategy underway to acquire your shares at less than their true value.

CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 444GA
Transfer of shares
(1) The administrator of a deed of company arrangement may transfer shares in the company if the administrator has obtained:
(a) the written consent of the owner of the shares; or
(b) the leave of the Court.

(2) A person is not entitled to oppose an application for leave under subsection (1) unless the person is:
(a) a member of the company; or
(b) a creditor of the company; or
(c) any other interested person; or
(d) ASIC.

(3) The Court may only give leave under subsection (1) if it is satisfied that the transfer would not unfairly prejudice the interests of members of the company.

I hope my long winded reply gives Pavy and other shareholders some insight as to what is happening pending a directions hearing in the Supreme Court on 29 May.