Ann: 2016 Financial Report, page-57

I acknowledge your opinion Brass, but I do not agree. The company is effectively run by the same guys. Kantor was a tech guy given a toothless title and PR duties (to the distraction of his tech role).

As you mention Intervision, that's a good example of what I was saying - IOT knew at the outset they were on shaky content IP grounds. So the business plan seems to have been - let's run with it and see if anyone notices. Well, the IP owners did notice, threatened to sue, and IOT obligingly torched shareholders money and closed the business down. IOT maintain the IP claim was without merit, but in hindsight, the IP holders have won without spending a cent. That seems to me to be a good example of a business that was not properly understood norb researched by Ardent. It is even more insane (again in hindsight) that IOT (not Kantor) were racing around town during cap raises saying they intended to split off Intervision once revenues reached $75million per annum. Go figure. As I said, same guys are still there collecting YOUR cash and company ownership.