This mightn't go down too well with some....I spoke with James...

This mightn't go down too well with some....
I spoke with James Carroll yesterday, had a long discussion about many points of issue, concerns I have etc., some of which are -
If court case is a win, how and when are proceeds distributed?

Does the essential structure of the shares on issue change if the YES proposal gets up?

What is the likelihood of Saville pulling funding from the litigation proceedings?

What will happen if the NO vote is in the majority, re receivership and consequent actions?

So, from my recollection, I'll note down what was discussed.

The shares on issue will remain the same (eg, 800 million + ERG shares).

If there is a court win, the proceeds (after Saville is reimbursed for costs of litigation and his shareholding quota) will be distributed to shareholders. If the company feels it necessary to plough those proceeds back into the ERG company, a vote will be required from shareholders, and passed accordingly.

As Saville holds about 30% of shares, it would appear (according to James Carroll) he would be reluctant to cut funding for the litigation, as this would reduce/cancel any chance he would have of receiving any portion of funds, should there be a win.

If the NO vote gets up, everything is up for grabs, ie., a new possible refinancing/recapitalisation proposal may be sought, or the whole company may go into receivership - that is an unknown (known only to Saville at this stage, I guess). Without access to his funding arrangements, it is hard to know how badly he is positioned, especially in today's market, and how desperate he is to get his hands on either the company, or the company's liquidated assets.
One thing that did come out of the discussion, is that if the company DOES go into receivership, there would be few, if any companies in the world who would bother doing business with ERG. So that's about it.

I know I have bellyached on about how I will vote NO on pretty much everything, but I guess a slim chance is better than none, so I've decided to vote YES on all proposals. Hang me if you want, but I stand to lose over $400k on this venture, so I suppose I have to resign myself to the fact that I should at least keep my options open, rather than shut the gate on the whole affair.

For what it's worth, James Carroll was very courteous and spent time explaining everything as plainly as possible. The real culprit here is that idiot John Watkins, who clearly had no grasp of the complexity of the contract, and even worse, no ability to draw people together and make it go forward. I hope he rots in hell...