Member Info for Culpepper

Not that we’ll get a vote, unless it’s required by law or articles.

Whatever’s said on here, I suspect most would vote for whatever’s put out, with a little bit of reason behind it.

Just having a bit of fun Summit, otherwise it’s Groundhog Day.

Summit you said ‘The placing.’ What placing?’

Is that alright for the fun loving scrutineers?

And I see I said ‘If’ in my response.

Trippy at it again. Biased and over-imaginative.

The poster asked about an ASX placement. I responded in kind. I now see he says ‘the’ as opposed to any.

I think most hold the line on it has not been confirmed or denied.That’s the fact.

Personally, I think it is an ideal time to do one, and if so, we shall be told the reason for it.

My view only, before I go.

We get a vote on reorganisation if it occurs, likely. I see that as administrative, and amounting to a proxy vote for ASX listing.

We do not get a vote on listing. I believe it is not required.

In the normal course of events, we do not get a vote on placings.

Have a good day.

So I think the vote will be done, before anybody knows what will happen on listing.

The reorganisation is one thing, the listing another, though they interlock.

I see the listing process in UK and Australia, as complementing the ASX listing.

I therefore do not see that process as giving rise necessarily to info around placing if it occurs, which may follow court and then be perhaps included in ASX prospectus for shareholder information.

If they decide, which seems likely, to persue the reorganisation they will need the vote prior to court for scheme of arrangement, and before it can be listed. The vote will go through. It is administrative.

Applications would be made for the admission of the new parent company to trading on both the ASX and AIM, reducing costs and complexity associated with Greatland owning assets and conducting operations in Australia while being domiciled in the UK.

If there is a placement, of course it dilutes, unless investors qualify to buy into it or remedy themselves.

Doesn’t matter to me, but is there a particular reason for this funding angle?

I should say though, you can’t rule out convertible loan notes, in some circumstances.

They’re not generally into ‘banking.’ The idea was floated before of Wyloo, that well-known bank, lending Ggp cash. Loans happen, but banks offer debt, companies require equity.

It’s academic. Can’t think why anyone, Wyloo et al, would not want ASX listing. So it would be a nonsense to stand in the way of running things in a simple version.

On vote, as I said before, I know of nothing in legislation, rules, Ggp memorandum of association, requiring a vote for a cross listing.

Put me right, but I don’t think you’re getting a vote on the ASX listing, just the reorganisation which could form part of it to simplify matters for Ggp,if they decide to go ahead with that reorganisation.

ASX will happen. Not necessarily reorganisation, as I read the RNS.

Next thing up, if they are to proceed with reorganisation, is a vote?

I don’t know, but if he wants to put out a to date prospectus or memorandum of information, with a view to creating interest on which the Australian market can make judgements., he’ll have it done.

I agree. They can’t answer and keep banging on.

Another one hard of reading. That was the point. No good suggesting snidely Newmont must carry on as per Newcrest, if you cannot say what Newcrest were LEGALLY OBLIGED to do.