stop the negativity!!, page-21

Of course the argument from ETH side would be that they expected to get funding so that they could continue to meet their financial obligations as and when they became due, and that when that funding didn't eventuate they called in administrators.

They already disclosed that in their opinion the injunctions had no effect on their ability to continue their business in Zambia. If untrue, their argument will probably be that they thought it was true at the time.

And KF is probably a creditor because he made a loan to the company.

I'm not defending the actions of anyone at ETH, because I don't know in detail what they have or haven't done, but it's not as simple as saying that someone should be criminally charged because others lost money.