Geralvin, I'm sure you are hurting so I'll take that into...

Geralvin, I'm sure you are hurting so I'll take that into account.

I don't know what it is, my writing style or may be an irritation because I post things that either prove or are contrary? For some odd reason my posts seem to be misinterpreted. I did say words to the effect of I leave it up to Directors to judge the capability of executive management. Therefore no, that doesn't mean a company eoukd never fire a CEO for poor performance - it actually means the opposite, Directirs have a fiduciary duty and as such if a root cause is executive managemmt I expect a company would fire the head. Regarding offer resignation, again no inconsistency there. The market capitalisation has taken a dreadful fall the honourable thing to do is offer to fall on the sword. The Directirs, fling there duty what they feel is best for the company, rejected the offer.

Regarding due diligence. We simply don't know, what we do know is the acquisition has caused a dramatic fall in value of the company. That is all we know today. Whether that is terminal decline in value we don't know, whether it is due to the collective minds of many professionals being fooled we don't know. What we do know is executives backed the deal with their own head-earned.

I fully understand feeling devastated but since respectfully say the only basis fir judging AG is a share price and an obviously stalled acquisition. Very serious yes, nevertheless AG performance leading the company through thus we don't know - clearly the Durectors and the banking syndicate regard him as the best person to lead the company at this time. Anything else is shallow opinion based solely on loss if shareholder value.

I recall you have been a poster now and again gif a while so presumably bought in at a much higher price. I hope it does recover for you, and for others, and that you are able to wait for it play out over the coming years.