ya global, page-6

Problem is, they're just going to say that it was a last minute firesale to avoid receivership. The real questions that need to be asked include why alternative arrangements weren't prepared earlier, and what happened to all the "facts" released in previous announcements that now seem to have vapourised.

They may have needed shareholder approval to issue a placement, but they had plenty of chance to give notice of an EGM. They knew well over a month ago that there could be difficulties. Even if it was thought to not be needed at the time, it could have been done as a backup plan. The only "innocent" excuse out of that one is to plead incompetence at not having a sensible back-up option.

It is also questionable on whether they were insolvent anyway at the point of the sale, and therefore whether it is valid anyway.

Further questions are about whether they need approval to sell the asset. They claim it is not the primary asset, based on their cost investing in it, but is that a valid argument? There seems to be universal opinion on here that it was sold massively under its true value, so does that make it worth more than the IO business?