4 questions lodged at 2026 Acrow (ACF) hybrid EGM
July 30, 2026
Below is the text of the 4 written questions submitted at the 37 minute Acrow (ACF) hybrid EGM at 10.30am in Sydney and via the Automic platform on July 29, 2026. The stock was at 91c on July 29, giving it a market cap of $336m. See notice of meeting detailing 5 resolutions. The proxies were not disclosed early as no formal address was lodged with the ASX. There were 2 shareholders asking questions in the room and one other online. There were no protest votes.
Q1. AFR Chancticleer columnist Anthony Macdonald wrote a column on July 26 about a report into capital raisings by proxy adviser Ownership Matters. The headline was "There's a bizarre economics to ASX raising, and bankers are loving it". He basically argued boards are driving a bad bargain when negotiating a capital call by over-paying the bankers & brokers involved. In light of this, why did we agree to pay Morgans & Shaw a large 3.5% base fee on our recent $86m raise & did we pay the 0.5% bonus fee? If so, why?
Answer: The chair said they did pay the bonus fee. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q2. The board put our shares into a trading halt at 9.16am on June 17, which was 12 hours after The AFR's Street Talk column broke the story of our $70m capital raising at 9.19pm the night before. The official announcement didn't drop until 10.18am on June 17, 13 hours after the $70m raise target was leaked to The AFR. Who authorised this? Seeing as the $70m figure was already in the public arena, shouldn't our trading halt announcement at least have disclosed to everyone the same information, including the overpaid brokers we'd appointed, so that if existing shareholders wanted to participate, they would at least know who to contact?
Answer: The board weren't happy with the leak as they hadn't actually decided to proceed with the capital raising. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q3. How many different investors participated in the placement and how stringently did we apply a pro-rata allocation policy to prevent existing shareholders from being diluted? Did the board or management make any changes to the allocations proposed by Morgans and Shaw, the overpaid brokers to the issues, or did we just go with their suggestions without interrogating any priority given to their associates or clients? Did any existing shareholders complain about the size of their allocation?
Answer: The chair said they did pro rata and were involved in the final decision. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Q4. Is this meeting being recorded and will a copy of the webcast be made available on your website for the benefit of the 5500-plus shareholders who were unable to tune in live?
Answer: Sounded like a no. Watch video of exchange via Twitter.
Copyright © 2026 The Mayne Report. All rights reserved
