AGM, page-52

Star Vegas had a lot of room for expansion at purchase (potentially doubling table numbers in underutilised halls) and had been making around US60m EBITDA. It also achieved this in following 2 years. US240m was the cash price for it which is more reasonble when you consider the price at which the share component was issued (US120m / over $1 per share). The casino was actually revalued upwards after purchase by Colliers if you remember?

Though your right, the casino was not worth that as the financial performance has since collapsed under DNA, even beyond the significant disruptions from the Vendor. I don't think we can assume Star Vegas will get back to US60m earnings for some time, if ever.

I don't think it's entirely accurate to just blame management, they had an aggreement and had the Vendor continued to partner with DNA the performance and share price would be significantly higher. Also you surely can't blame them for criminal activity like that at Aristo? 

They also appear to have had the sense to have a framework for pursuing the Vendor in Singapore where he apparently has assets, and the legal system is advanced. I think at a minimum the Vendor's shares will be cancelled which is effectively an 18% buy back, but also that the disruptions will continue for years to come adding uncertainty and depressing the share price. 

It certainly should have a deep discount, I remember in the annual report Colliers apply a unmarketability discount of around 25% for Star Vegas, can't quite remember exact number. So, if business not really growing is worth say 10 times NPAT, perhaps DNA should be valued at 7-8 times NPAT. 

In terms of more value destruction, I think it really comes down to the lawsuit outcomes. I really don't know and for that reason none of us really should be, or should have been in the stock. It all sounds like DNA have a strong case, but look at the appeal to casino injunction where the Vendor proved he did not own those casinos, a laughable outcome.

The lease issue is a seperate issue, and by the sounds of it the vendor is engaged in harrassment and DNA payed a fortune for that casino and it's 50 yr lease. However, maybe the 'contrived and spurious' grounds are actually valid? But again, with the injunction on the lease termination, won by DNA, points to a positive outcome given the local court seemed convinced the grounds for termination were not valid? 

unlucky events:

Chinese mafia

Large high roller win at Aristo

Death of Thai King

Low win rates