Ann: Update on Convertible Note Funding, page-26

"He also mentioned to me that dealing with CBA constituted a ‘moral hazard’ and that, as such, it was better to move on."

Whether or not shareholders are happy with going broke over a moral principle, would be interesting to know the timing of this revelation. Or am I understanding this wrong?

At what stage during the year+ of talks, then over a year of trials, after you have gone all-in with shareholders cash, do you decide that its better to send the company almost into liquidation rather than pursue a deal?

I appreciate you sharing, WB, as not all shareholders are worthy of these priveleged insights. But every excuse/explanation so far has left me gobsmacked. I cant really understand the rationale. Am I alone? These do not seem like the thoughts of a director that I am remotely comfortable investing in, and it doesnt give me the impression that shareholder interests are priority 1.