Carlos Danger
Top 20
That would require the same 50% needed to get on the board
I guess the obvious answer is the most likely to be correct. He hoped he would get more.
AVZ Discussion 2022
- Thread starter GazDix
- Start date
I guess the obvious answer is the most likely to be correct. He hoped he would get more.
Hodlandwin69
Regular
What was the maximum shares they offered to buy?
700mil rings a bell .
Mr_Tones83
Regular
As much as anyone wants to think this is nefarious, there is nothing illegal about having your holdings in custody under a nominee account. The custodian is required to maintain records of the beneficial owner/s of the account under custody.
It is standard practice for insto's and sophisticated investors to hold in custody in this way.
AVZ is able to see through to the ultimate beneficial owner as well.
An example of this even at the retail level is Superhero. They have all holdings on one HIN registered under Superhero's name, and maintain records of the underlying holders on their own books.
Hodlandwin69
Regular
Lol ok so they got no where near that, bunch of sooky cunts
Winenut
Go AVZ!
Being just shy of 20% of the SOI so as not to raise the attention of FIRB ....possibly????
Carlos Danger
Top 20
FIRB threshold is 10% and wouldn’t apply here as Resource Fatital Investments is domiciled in AustraliaBeing just shy of 20% of the SOI so as not to raise the attention of FIRB ....possibly????
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 606
Prohibition on certain acquisitions of relevant interests in voting shares
Acquisition of relevant interests in voting shares through transaction entered into by or on behalf of person acquiring relevant interest
(1) A person must not acquire a relevant interest in issued voting shares in a company if:
(a) the company is:
(i) a listed company; or
(ii) an unlisted company with more than 50 members; and
(b) the person acquiring the interest does so through a transaction in relation to securities entered into by or on behalf of the person; and
(c) because of the transaction, that person's or someone else's voting power in the company increases:
(i) from 20% or below to more than 20%
Winenut
Go AVZ!
Just thought FIRB "might" look further behind Carrotdick and Resource Capital Investments and investigate who might be backing the cnt
But I get that the entity is domiciled in Oz
Not sure about your 10% threshold though
The magic number is when the shareholding moves from below 20% to more than 20%......that's the trigger point
Well I thought it was
CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 606
Prohibition on certain acquisitions of relevant interests in voting shares
Acquisition of relevant interests in voting shares through transaction entered into by or on behalf of person acquiring relevant interest
(1) A person must not acquire a relevant interest in issued voting shares in a company if:
(a) the company is:
(i) a listed company; or
(ii) an unlisted company with more than 50 members; and
(b) the person acquiring the interest does so through a transaction in relation to securities entered into by or on behalf of the person; and
(c) because of the transaction, that person's or someone else's voting power in the company increases:
(i) from 20% or below to more than 20%
Last edited:
Carlos Danger
Top 20
The 10% is the level Yibin were denied at because it gives the holder an option of an automatic board seat. Which would serve Carrick's purpose anyway if he got to that.
And yes I can read the legislation I quoted that is for any holder regardless of domiciled jurisdiction. Anything above this is prohibited unless the acquisition occurs via a specified exception (such as a takeover bid, scheme of arrangement or with target shareholder approval).
Just ask Gina how her LTR holding is going
Winenut
Go AVZ!
Gotcha
Might be super coincidental. But when Rio checked in at DRC a few month back. Check thier share price appreciation from that point onwards. I feel like it’s just purely coincidental. But you never know.
I'm happy to do a share swap at 50:1............
Sheesh!
If that is to be believed, that's some high level attention right there.
I wonder what "ensuring the state gets its fair share" boils down to for us plebs...
Mute22
Regular
Funny, if they followed their own mining code their 'fair share' was already outlined. Now they know the size, they want to change the rules after we take all the risk.
Carlos Danger
Top 20
If they actually gave a fuck about their 'fair share' then Cominiere wouldn't have put the 15% of Dathcom up for sale in the first place
oxxa23
Regular
No chance they will in my opinion... the drc govt didn't appear to like our last update... why put more out there to annoy them... nothing to be gained by reporting anything.... I'd rather no feel good and more chance of success...
Similar threads
